Position:Home>Philosophy> A simply complicated paradox?
Question: A simply complicated paradox!?
A while ago I stumbled onto a question that asked, "What rules are meant to be broken!?" I realize that this person was being superficial and just wanted some simple rules!. But I pried and confused myself with a rather simple but complicatedly, never-ending paradox!.
My answer to the question was at first that rules can not really be meant to be broken, otherwise they would not be "rules"!. They can be broken but are rules because they are generally meant to be followed!. This opened my eyes to the idea that if they are "meant" to be followed and the question is what rules are "meant" to be broken, then the answer is that the rule would have to specifically state "Break this rule"!. In this way it would be meant to be broken!.
My paradox is this: If the rule states that you should break it, and rules are meant to be obeyed, than you have to obey the rule by breaking it!. With this, you would be breaking the rule and following it at the same time!. But to break the rule, as the rule states, you'd have to disobey the rule by doing the opposite!. And the only way you can do the opposite is to obey the rule, because it states to break it, thus obeying the rule and starting the process over again!. And over and over and over!.
My brain itches and I'm sick of the word "rule"!. Anyways I'm not so much asking a question as I am just asking for your oppinions and maybe some enlightenment as to how to break the cycle!. If you're still reading this than you're the kind of person I want answering my paradox!. Thanks for reading :)Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
You cant break it in any case because it doesnt say how you can break the rule
Anyways, if you could actually break it, I would assume that you are following the rules because the rule asked to be broken specifically
And if you cannot break it, then you are violating the rule even though you havent broken it because you didnt follow the rules instructions :)Www@QuestionHome@Com
Unfortunately it is a infinite loop!. And now my brain itches!! It/both parts are the equal and opposite reaction of the other, kinda like the concept of 2 mirrors facing each other reflecting the other but they are not mirrors because they are the opposite of each other but have the same rule as two mirrors facing each other!. Ouch!! Www@QuestionHome@Com
When something illogical and absurd is presented to one, the only way to deal with it is to ignore the predicament and do as one wishes since it is unreasonable to even try to satisfy the stated condition(s) by any mean!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Hmm!. Well, I guess if you didn't follow the 'Break this Rule' rule in the first place, then you'd only be breaking a rule once, instead of breaking it over and over!.!.!.
I think!?
I'm surprised my brain even followed your train of though!. I'm tired!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
If you stick to this narrow mindedness you are not going to advance muchWww@QuestionHome@Com
You kinda get into a rant but your logic is good!. The minute you make any tiny exception to any 'rule' it instantly invalidates itself!.
Everything I say is a lie, except this statement!
Always cannot trump Never unless Never is Always!.
I, and I suspect most people, chafe at rules and am much more likely to comply to a request than an order!. And what about Rule's big brother Mandate!? We don't even abide very well to rules that don't already support our point of view!. Or, worse, are put in place and enforced stupidly, blindly; you must comply because it is the Rule! The Rule is typically poorly explained, if at all!. Rules could only work well if every player could be made to agree to them; with egos and greed to contend with!. Right!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
1st rule of fight club!. don't follow any of the rules of fight club!.
2nd rule of fight club!. have brain aneurysm because of the first rule of fight club!.
yup its a paradox!.
i don't know where the expression rules are meant to be broken came from!. but that's the most ridiculous saying i find!.
rules were designed in order to be followed!. they are created in order to stop behaviour that occurs, or would occur, without the rule!.
it's a logical mistake!. i think the logic supposedly behind it is that if the rule was never broken there would be no need for the rule!.
but that's not the case!. first A happens!. then you create rule 'you can't do A' then A doesn't happen anymore!. but you don't remove the rule in that case!. cause then it would start happening again!.
the rule not being broken does not remove the utility of the rule!. it removes the utility of enforcement!. cops or something would become useless!.
so in my opinion, the saying should be more like,"that's what cops are for" or something!.
if rules were made to be broken, why would you make the rule, it would totally defeat the purpose!. rules wouldn't even exist if that sentence made sense!. in fact that saying itself is kind of paradoxical because of that!.Www@QuestionHome@Com