Of rules and exceptions

Hello to all,

There is something that has occupied my thoughts for far too long; I wish to share it presently:

If every rule has an exception, so does the rule that every rule has an exception. Then, is the rule the only exception to itself? If this were the case, it would mean that the phrase is simultaneously an exception and a rule, and that the rule has only one exception to itself, which is itself. Is there a flaw in my reasoning or is this a conundrum?

sinse when does every rule have to have an exeption?

Language Games, as Wittgenstein would say.

Well I was not under the impression that it was the case; however my professor made this proclamation in class and challenged anyone to come up with a rule that does not have an exception; so, I realized that the very phrase “every rule has an exception” turns on itself as it is its own exception.

like “never, never happens” its a paradox but only if you believe that there are absolutes.

Yes it applies to itself. How can it not? Those are my first and second rules:
~Every rule has an exception.
~The first rule applies to itself.

It’s kind of a paradox, but it’s easy for me to see (for a paradox). I see it like this:

-The laws of mankind will always have exceptions.
-The laws of nature never do.

So maybe it’s not as much of a paradox as I thought.

Here is a rule that has no exception.

You/no one can make someone Love you.

If it’s not universally aplicable without exception, perhaps it’s not really a rule in the sense it’s meant to be used here?

Perhaps what would be better is a pronouncement “No Rules! (this is not a rule!”

I believe that the exception is breaking the rules and making it seem as if you only bend them, or breaking them and getting away with it, but then this to would have an exception because it could or would become a new rule or part of a rule. so i guess it would be a paradox.

Makes sense to me.

As far As I know none of the laws of physics have exceptions, they are only complicated by other overlapping laws that introduce many variables, but still no exceptions.

Murder has no exception; no civilized society with normal functioning people will tolerate it and never have from the beginning. Only defective small isolated groups throughout history have accepted it and not imposed punishment, but these defective humans cannot be a reference to such, which brings me to exceptions. Rules/laws don’t have exceptions, people do.

Who says there are no Absolutes?

exactly. Thanks for questioning the assumption.

to proove a statement false, all you have to do is show “one” counter example that is at odds, and the validity of the statement falls.

counterexample: There is no traveling back in litteral time. No exceptions.

You are only discusing this issue as a play on words for a grade in your class, not as a practical reality of any sort.

Suppose there is a rule which says that every rule has an exception. This means this rule says it is true that every rule has an exception. If this is, indeed, true, then this rule - which we shall henceforth call “rule A” - must have an exception itself, i.e., there must be a rule that has no exception. Now rule A cannot be its own exception, because that would mean that it had no exception, whereas if it were its own exception then it would have an exception, namely itself. So the rule cannot be its own exception.

it all depends on who is enforcing the rule because they decide the exception.

Some one who has read and understood Nietzsche!

Rare

Nice

kp