• Janus
    5.9k


    Oh, dear poor attentiveness on my part...is there a rule against that?
  • Banno
    3.5k
    If people don't even try to follow the rules that came before, it's not a game at all.T Clark

    What happens is a competition to have the most important rule.

    I wonder how this would proceed if played only amongst women.
  • Banno
    3.5k
    Rule 9 says that Banno gets to decide any conflicts in the game.T Clark

    Eminently sensible...
  • Janus
    5.9k


    Rule 14: In any search for supreme leaders and/or philosopher kings strict criteria shall be employed in order to rule out unlikely cadidates from the get-go and minimize the risk of wasted time and futile emotional investment.
  • Cavacava
    2.4k


    And what is that criteria?

    Could it be a power beyond the rules of the game, power that creates the context of the game, that allows the game.

    Rule #8: Cavacava will not question my authoritah.
  • Janus
    5.9k


    If the search goes on within the game then the criteria must also be within the game. Also, if it can be enunciated within the game, then it must be part of the game.

    The criteria must be suited to purpose. In the case we have before us we don't need to think much; a simple rule such as 'Do not consider as a candidate for supreme leader anyone who is significantly covered in body hair'.
  • Banno
    3.5k
    Bah. Criteria ought be relevant. Trees need not apply.
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Is the goal of the game to find a supreme leader?
  • Banno
    3.5k
    It is if you make that the goal.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    Rule 15: All white people with brown hair must exclaim "Glub Glub Walla Walla" every time they use the word philosophy. Glub Glub Walla Walla
  • Janus
    5.9k


    Or bark. Or barks.
  • T Clark
    3k
    Bah. Criteria ought be relevant. Trees need not apply.Banno

    And as it says in Rule 9, Banno's word is law.
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k
    @Banno @T Clark @Janus

    Ok, so, a summary.

    The first rule is that it's your turn to add a rule. Now, given Rule #11, it's clear that rule #1 is situational. But the sense is, that, if you're reading this, you are free to add a rule. This suggests that the game itself is built upon the pillars of free speech. Rule #2 is "Whereof one cannot speak, things must be shown". T. Clark felt he could not speak, and thence created rule #9, which was a perfect example of rule #2. So far, no one else has followed rule #2, except for Banno in rule #3. But because rule #11 allows for situational rules, it can be assumed that rule #2 only applies when only pictures will do.

    Now, rule #3 is a complex and perplexing rule, not least of which because, like rule #9, it is presented in image form. The rule is quite literally a .png. This is in keeping with rule #2. But it's unclear what exactly rule #3 actually espouses. On the one hand, it's possible that rule #3 suggests that the social contract of engendering the game, of mere participation, is criteria enough to cement the participant within the confines of the rules of the game itself. But, on the other hand, if ones sides with Camus, the rules themselves are not only frivolous, but, patently absurd. So, rule #3 can be interpreted as both a qualification of, and a refutation of, rule #2. This ambiguity may cause future problems. Continue reading.

    Rule #4 is:

    Rule #4. Anyone who uses or refers to rule #4 must start their post with, "Rule #4 is an excellent rule."tim wood

    Now, rule #4 is an excellent rule; except it's actually not. We have a problem here. Rule #11 applies.

    Rule #5 is "choose a side". This rule is rooted in deep traditions of wisdom; to choose a side is to demarcate; choosing a side means creating a definition; and what human action could be both more profound, and more freeing? Unfortunately, within the confines of the rules of the game so far, it's unclear what the sides actually are. So, with regards to rule #5, we need to reference rule #11, and acknowledge that choosing sides will in the future be both a wise and necessary goal, but, given the current set of rules, rule #5 is irrelevant. But thanks to rule #11, it still holds [future] water.

    rule #6 is utterly irrelevant to all other rules, and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.

    Rule #7 is also utterly irrelevant to all other rules (other than rule #8), and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.

    Rule #8 is also utterly irrelevant to all other rules (other than rule #7), and, within keeping with rule #11, should be indefinitely ignored.

    Rule #9 is very esoteric; it questions whether all rules should have been stated in picture form up until this point, even though they have, by and large, not been stated in picture form. In an almost Warholian motif, T. Clark dramatically asks us this question with his rule. But, sadly, rule #9 is a deep, existential question, rather than a rule, and so, once again, rule #11 applies here, rendering rule #9 meaningless.

    In addition, rule #9 also specifically states, in picture form, that one Banno, presumably the author of the thread itself, gets to decide any conflicts within the game. This is an important aspect of rule #9 which I initially overlooked; but I've amended my summary to include it, thanks to one T. Clark.

    This is rule #10 (a dandy of a rule if I ever saw one):

    Rule 10: (Had been Rule 9 but Banno beat me to the post) The author of this thread shall reveal the "curious implications" prior to any player stating any further rules. He shall also reveal all the consequences of any of the rules already established being broken. (If rules are broken along the way does this entail that the game first annihilates and then reincarnates itself over and over?)Janus

    This rule is problematic because, rather than being a rule that applies specifically to the game, the author of this rule, one Janus, as such, is clearly just asking the author of said thread, one Banno, what the "curious implications" of the thread are. Now, this is clearly not a proper rule of the game. This is an attempt at an unessisary ultimatum of sorts. Janus is essentially inquiring about the nature of the game itself; if this were indeed a rule within the game, it would be difficult to properly enforce and police this rule. Rule #11 once again applies.

    And now:

    Rule #11: Not all rules apply at the same time.

    This rule is self-explanatory, and informs all previous and future rules. This rule is the first proper rule. It serves as a kind of crux-point to all other rules; again, both past, and future. Rule #11 is infinite and eternal.

    Rule #12 is meaningless.

    Rule #13 was nowhere clearly stated, and yet members of the game seem to assume it exists. Until further proof is brought forth, it can only be assumed that rule #13 does not exist. This is troubling.

    Rule #14:

    Rule 14: In any search for supreme leaders and/or philosopher kings strict criteria shall be employed in order to rule out unlikely cadidates from the get-go and minimize the risk of wasted time and futile emotional investment.Janus

    Suddenly, the search for a supreme leader has become the goal of the game, which is entirely egregious and erroneous. No where has this goal been stated, or even implied. This assumption about the need for a supreme leader, and the suggestion that the game is oriented towards the crowning of such a leader, is not only unprecedented, but simply, patently, false.

    Rule #15:

    Rule 15: All white people with brown hair must exclaim "Glub Glub Walla Walla" every time they use the word philosophy. Glub Glub Walla WallaMonfortS26

    Another meaningless rule that is superseded by rule #11.
  • T Clark
    3k
    Rule #9 is very esoteric; it questions whether all rules should have been stated in picture form up until this point, even though they have, by and large, not been stated in picture form. In an almost Warholian motif, T. Clark dramatically asks us this question with his rule. But, sadly, rule #9 is a deep, existential question, rather than a rule, and so, once again, rule #11 applies here, rendering rule #9 meaningless.Noble Dust

    This is a wonderful post. It almost makes the for the rest of the bullshit in this discussion. A quibble - you have focused on the form of Rule 9 and not it's content. As I said in a previous post:

    Rule 9 says that Banno gets to decide any conflicts in the game.T Clark

    Except for the fact that I have lost interest in the game and I don't want to have to cut and paste a bunch of pictures together again, I would promulgate a rule giving that role to you.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    Rule #16: Rule #11 never applies
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k
    A quibble - you have focused on the form of Rule 9 and not it's content. As I said in a previous post:T Clark

    Very true; I've amended my summary so as to include this important point.

    Except for the fact that I have lost interest in the game and I don't want to have to cut and paste a bunch of pictures together again, I would promulgate a rule giving that role to you.T Clark

    While I am grateful for your recommendation, and while I would fully accept your promulgation, I cannot, by nature of the game, officially accept your hypothetical rule, passing on to me the role you so generously have offered, without an actual rule being instigated, democratically, by someone within the thread.



    Except that rule #11 also applies to rule #16.
  • MonfortS26
    250


    Rule #17: The hierarchy that the rules follow start at rule 18, with the rule number as variable x and for every rule if |x-18|=-y then the instance where y=0 is the most important rule

    Rule #18: The user MonfortS26 is the only user with the privilege of being exempt from all rules and his rules are accepted as law.
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Rule #11 still applies. Nice.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    Why does rule #11 take precedence over rule #17?
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Because rule #11 states that not all rules apply at the same time. That includes rule #17.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    That doesn't state that no rule can apply every time.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    Rule #19: Rule #17 and Rule #19 apply at all times.
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Right. So when does rule #11 not apply? How do you determine this? You determine it on the basis of rule #11 itself.



    Still subject to rule #11, rendering both #17 and #19 meaningless.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    How do you determine this? You determine it on the basis of rule #11 itself.Noble Dust

    Where is that a rule?
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Answer the question "when does rule #11 not apply", and I'll answer your question.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    It doesn't matter when rule #11 does not apply when another rule states that it itself applies all of the time. Rule #11 doesn't state that no rule can apply at all times, it just states that not all rules apply at the same time. That statement suggests that some rules don't apply all of the time, not that all rules only apply sometimes.
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Rule #20: Rules #17 and #19 never apply.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    Rule #21:Rule #20 never applies.
  • MonfortS26
    250
    Rule #22: Exempting rule #20 and #21 no rule never applies.
  • Noble Dust
    3.1k


    Rule #23: nothing MonfortS26 says in this thread applies.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.