Wittgenstein's Paradox through the Offside rule

[@Bebeflapula]

Looking back at the video and comments, I feel like I have to add some things. First of all: _The two offside rules! _ Since it's not that common that the goalkeeper would step in front of any teammate, most people just say that offside is about the last defender and don't count the goalkeeper in. Sometimes it's easier to abbreviate the rule like that. But for the most part I think that people just don't know the official rule, because we have intuitively learned it from watching (and playing) soccer. Since we rarely see the goalkeeper step in front of a teammate just as offside would be called, the goalkeeper soon loses relevance for the practical offside rule and we get the idea that he doesn't really count. *Here's a **_short version_** of the two rules:* *Official offside rule* : A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. *Common misconception* : A player is in an offside position if he is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the last defender ( _goalkeeper excluded_ ). And secondly, *the kangoroo anectode is factually incorrect* , "kangoroo" does not mean "i don't know" and there was probably never a conversation like the one mentioned in the quoted movie, Arrival. In the movie, the protagonist also clarifies that she made up the story to prove a point, but I didn't include it because I wanted to keep it short. Anyways, should anyone feel a bit confused or unsatisfied after watching the video, I hope this comment helps! Thanks for all the support!:)

[@saken]

I really love this area of philosophy, along with Wittgenstein, Kripke, J.L. Austin and Lakoff's works. The mental processing that leads to the refinement of a concept is really intriguing, because we tend to take it for granted, but we work from the results constantly. Thinking about that helps in breaking down all kinds of arguments, ranging from social issues and politics, to ancient conundrums. An example that I like involves imaging you are a child that is just learning your first words. A parent opens an alphabet book and points to a picture of what we know of as a red apple and says apple. A conceptworld association is primed by that action. However if you then saw an "orange", there's a good chance you would call it "apple." Why? Even tho its shape is slightly different and the color is different? Because you only have one sample, with no further refinement of the concept's rule list. You may believe the generally spherical shape is the singular necessary feature in identifying apples. You might even identify all spherical-ish objects as apples, because you know no other concepts to demarcate from. Then let's say a parent points to an orange and says "orange." This acts upon the criteria for apple that is already held, refining it by subtracting the latter from the former. But how about if you were then shown an unusual "apple" that is shaped exactly like the first apple, but colored exactly like the orange. You may again be confronted by some confusion, because your rule list for both apple(spherical+red) and orange(spherical+orange) are very limited. As you are shown different types of apples and oranges, examined their skin closely, tasted them, etc, you would develop a much longer list of rules that would all come into play in identifying the orange colored apple. With those rules at your disposal, which includes apples with different colored skins, you would weigh the importance of each criteria, notice the smooth skin of the apple, taste it, and be able to identify it as an apple. I think that's a good example of how we learn concepts. Through observing their applications, to develop an internal set of criteria/rules(however abstract), for identifying their correct re-use. That of course isn't as straightforward when it comes to learning concepts for mental states like "love." And words aren't always only for identifying objects/states, but also intended to perform acts(Austin would call them performatives). Such as saying "I christen thee" at the correct moment at a boat christening. Overall, the whole subject is invaluable for breaking down buzzwords that stop more in-depth analysis and introspection. We are inclined to learn and re-use words with concept rule sets that we haven't thought about explicitly, and that leads to a large number of possible errors and negative consequences. The more we can refine the concepts behind the words we hear and use, the more we can understand and express our internal states more effectively, and help to clear up ambiguities in poor arguments that convince others for unexamined reasons. For me personally, reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations was the most important. It provides a wide range of tools for thinking about the meaning underlying every concept we hold and use. Another very interesting area is Lakoff's work on metaphor, involving the abstraction to meanings that we can often neglect to recognize, but constantly do. That abstraction step can confuse or disrupt one's analysis, if one doesn't consider it explicitly. And example is "your grades are going up." Where "up" is non-metaphorically a relational direction in space, being used metaphorically to mean more. When "up" could also mean less, just unintuitively, stemming from the typical direction of gravity on our bodies.

[@DeimosError]

you never told us the actual offside rule. I wanted to know the two interpretations of the rule which caused the misunderstanding. despite all that, it was a great video

[@patrickwienhoft7987]

Correct definition: When a pass is played to a player, that player is offside iff there is at most one player ahead of him (in the direction towards the opposite's team goal). [there's still a bit of ambiguity in what exactly a pass is and a few more nuances, but that's besides the point] Now usually the goalkeeper is always the player furthest back in a team. In 99.9% when an offside occurs and there is still a defender between attacker and goal line, it's the goal keeper. So a common definition also applied is that offside occurs when there are no field players (i.e. disregard goalie) between attacker and goal line. In the clip you can see a case where the definitions don't match - there is still a defender ahead of the attacker but the goalkeeper is not. Btw there was a similar discussion regarding the offside rule in a game a few years back. Commonly it's said that there must be a defender in between the attacker and the goal line in order to avoid offside. This seeming definitnio is only strengthened by media always shading this exact area - between attacker and goal line. But what if a player just runs off the field? Then technically he is not between attacker and goal line. What if the defender is injured tho and not actively involved in the situation? I looked up the technical definition and there might be even more edge cases. The rules read that a player is offside if he is "closer to the goal line than the second last defender". Now while both players are inside the field this defintion works out fine, but if one of the players is outside of the field on the side (i.e. very far to the left/right of the goal itself) then the distance to the goal line is not longer the orthogonal line and the ref would have to do some on the fly maths...

[@daAnT1990]

There have to be two defenders in front of the attacker, that's usually the GK and one field player... In this case the GK was ahead and only the defender on the goal line remained

[@MrWolf-xk8sl]

11:56

[@MysteryPianoMan007]

I find this very relevant to the post-truth word where different groups can't agree on basic facts because of their different interpretations.

[@percivalyracanth1528]

>muh 'post-truf' Bruh people have interpreted things differently since the beginning of humanity. Most of your so-called 'basic truths' are historically contingent opinions anyway (in regard to ethics, morality, and law, I mean). Also, even though democracy is supposed to, you know, 'empower' the people, now you're frustrated when people actually use that power in a way you don't like. So was the truth and the right thoughts prevalent in some before-time? Or are yours just the Pinnacle and complete end of history?

[@carlasunol6105]

i have to say this is a great video. the offside rule example is perfect, because in other videos they just explain with the plus and quus example and they way you apply it in a real situation is super helpful. thank you so much for this work!

[@SoteriosXI]

This was wonderful! Thanks a ton! I will now look up the solutions you mentioned.

[@treyh21]

First time I have had the pleasure of coming across one of your videos and I am incredibly thankful that I did. You explained this perfectly. Thank you so much for sharing the knowledge and I look forward to binging your other videos.

[@apostrophephilosophy6530]

Fantastic, thank you. This video is very clear and well produced =)

[@daniellos333]

I've been watching football for about 15 years now and was also confused why it was offside. Great vid.

[@phillylifer]

One of the more valuable videos on KZbin

[@bohdanbesaha4386]

This is really one of the cleverest vids I have ever watched. Not to mention, I never fully got the point of offside rules to begin with, because while I internalized it as you said you did by watching games, I enver stopped ot ask why.

[@MannISNOR]

Brilliant! You really succeeded in making this fun and educational! Keep going!

[@charlytaylor1748]

Wittgenstein said (though I can't source the quote) that he first thought of Language Games while passing a football pitch in Cambridge. AJ Ayer was a season ticket holder at T*ttenham H*tspurs for many years, Camus was a goalkeeper even at international level, and i have a philosophy degree an can still name half the Poland team that embarrassed us at Wembley in 1973 (I'm assuming ou're Polish). Good series btw

[@JerryPenna]

This is such a great example and helped me understand the rule following paradox. American football had the same problem and example when Dez Bryant if the Dallas Cowboys caught a pass against the Green Bay Packers in a playoff game. Many many people agreed Dez caught the ball but it was ruled not a catch. Fans for years stated “Dez caught it”. Years later the league officials officially deemed it a catch. So was it or wasn’t it a catch?

[@quinngebeaux8248]

Does anyone know the music that plays from 7:02-9:15? It’s not the one song mentioned in the description.

[@Bebeflapula]

It’s from the KZbin Audio Library “Classics” playlist, but I sadly don’t remember which one, hope it helps tho, sorry

[@solitarymind82]

Thank you so much, this is a great video on something so complex. Though it's still not very clear to me but I understand it far better from watching this video than from reading an academic paper... thank you... :)

[@Fafner888]

Pity you didn't cite section 68 from the Investigations where Wittgenstein actually makes a remark about the rules of sports. Quote: "I can give the concept 'number' rigid limits in this way, that is, use the word "number" for a rigidly limited concept, but I can also use it so that the extension of the concept is not closed by a frontier. And this is how we do use the word "game". For how is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one; for none has so far been drawn. (But that never troubled you before when you used the word "game".) "But then the use of the word is unregulated, the 'game' we play with it is unregulated."--It is not everywhere circumscribed by rules; but no more are there any rules for how high one throws the ball in tennis, or how hard; yet tennis is a game for all that and has rules too." It's an interesting passage because it already anticipates Wittgenstein's own solution to Kripke's 'paradox'. The paradox arises because we expect rules to be something 'super rigid' and maximally defined so as to prevent every possible misunderstanding that could conceivably occur (like expecting a teacher to give an explanation of '+' that no student could ever misunderstand, and of course such an explanation is not possible). Wittgenstein's point is that platonism about rules on the one side, and complete anarchy and collapse of meaning on the other, are not all the possible options from which we are forced to choose. Language is a pragmatic and context sensitive affair, it draws on speaker's natural tendencies for easily understanding certain things and misunderstanding some other. So when one goes on to define explicit rules, one has to keep in mind that rules by themselves don't dictate use in the platonist's sense (and here Kripke is correct), they are rather aids created for a particular purpose where certain things are taken for granted (that is our natural linguistic tenancies and instincts). No explicit rule can replace healthy common sense and intelligence, for language use and understanding depends on such things which cannot simply be bypassed by a-priori intuitions.

[@MysteryPianoMan007]

That's a very nice explanation of the quote. I never thought of it as Wittgenstein trying to eliminate platonism, but now it makes so much sense!

[@tyercuuhbitu2219]

Impressive.

[@unwrong8799]

But is a hot dog a sandwich?

[@Bebeflapula]

This being debatable is just another illustration on how our conceptions of things differ

[@NoNTr1v1aL]

Amazing video!

[@stevenwexler]

Wittgenstein is easier to understand than soccer’s (football’s) offside rule. :)

[@Sewblon]

I feel like this line of argument proves too much. If we can never really know the meanings of words, then no one can really be sure about the meanings of words used to explicate Wittgenstien's paradox. So this line of argument undercuts the presuppositions necessary for it to be intelligible to anyone, including the speaker. In other words, its a performative contradiction. The only reason that anyone would say anything is if they believed that the meaning will be grasped by someone.

[@Hypoc23]

Indeed. When Wittgenstein had concluded, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", he knew even the Tractacus was inexpressible. He stopped with philosophy and served most of the next decade as a schoolteacher (which went fairly badly).

[@Notapizzathief]

Do you mind if I use this example in an essay I'm writing about the rule-following paradox? I'll include your video in the bibliography of course.

[@Bebeflapula]

Of course I don't mind, I'm happy that you find the example compelling! :D

[@Notapizzathief]

@@Bebeflapula Thanks! I think it's a great example and makes the point perfectly. I was going to use a maths example before I found this video, but I was unsure about that because Kripke already uses a mathematical example with 'quus/plus'. In case you're curious, the example I was going to use was a pattern that appears to hold but doesn't...if you find the greatest common denominator (G.C.D) between n^17+9 and (n+1)^17+9, the answer always equals '1' for n=1,n=2, n=3 etc etc, all the way up to n= a ridiculously big number that's bigger than the number of atoms in the observable universe (over 50 zeros in it). You could easily imagine that after the first trillion instances of the rule 'G.C.D = 1' you would just presume that it always will equal 1, but it doesn't. Your example is easier to explain and better illustrates how it's a point about semantics and not just maths. I really enjoy your videos - keep it up! :)

[@Bebeflapula]

@@Notapizzathief ​Thank you for the supportive comments:) I looked up the example, I didn't know it before and will surely invoke it in future discussion of the problem of induction :D Like you said, the pattern irregularity that you mention seems to, rather than on a semantic level, arise in the thesis itself. Similar to observing a black swan, I suppose. Yes, in a sense Kripkenstein's paradox is just the problem of induction but for communication, so the two problems do go together. But what can the pattern irregularity teach us about the paradox? I'm thinking of the implications right now and how to expand the example to language. Did you have any thoughts on that connection?

[@Notapizzathief]

@@Bebeflapula That's interesting, I hadn't explicitly thought of it as like the problem of induction, and I was wondering what the connection he makes with Hume on causation was, but you've just made me realise why Hume is relevant here. Here's a link to the example I brought up: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmWko593m7CHgqM With regards to the implications I think there's perhaps something to be said about dispositionalism here. By dispositionalism I understand that meaning 'x' is just being disposed to use 'x' in the appropriate cirumstance (whatever 'appropriateness' is...I guess it's just using it in a way where you aren't challenged on it's use by another speaker). So I might be disposed when asked to find the greatest common denominator for n=1 to say '1', and disposed to also say '1' for n=2 and so on....but presumably there's a point at which I am no longer disposed. The number of steps you have to do before n=/=1 was huuuuge, and there's bigger numbers still - you could conceivably die before you even finish saying the number if it's big enough, so how can you possibly be disposed? You could only counterfactually be disposed (i.e. IF i lived long enough THEN i would be disposed to answer 'x' when asked a question where 'x' would be the appropriate answer).

[@Notapizzathief]

@@Bebeflapula You should read a paper called "Killing Kripkenstein's Monster" by Jared Warren in the journal 'Nous'. Let me know if you find it okay because I might be able to help if not. That's the article I got the idea about dispositionalism from, and it's not too heavy going (as far as heavy going analytic philosophy goes haha).

[@Zero4revolution]

Would you say that kids in the example (which is great) is actuallly just a different languange game? Those two games are different in the respect that treats the basic premises. The first one goes beyond the border of the number 20, and the second one stays inside it, never comming to different possiblities. I can imagine that meaning is not created, but simultaniosly given with the words which are tied up with the situation, context, emotions, etc. Wittgenstein would say a different "lifeform". "You could spend your whole life with the people around you using a different sort of "guus" function and you would never get to know that. You can't know that , because their behviour is compatible with how they would behave if the followed the Plus function". - this is great :D I would just add one little detail. I think that Wittgenstein is not a behaviorist and he would not limit the usage of the word on behviorist theory. Second, this implies that there can be "played one language game" which contains a different understanding. How is that even possible? :D I would say, maybe, it is possible if we don't think of words in a traditional ways (like substances, names,...maybe rigid designators :P), but insted only as relations, and those relations have its referents which are in "usage" at any given time. That is how the evolution of the language through the "lifeforms" can be described. What do you think about "private language" ? :D Great video, Regards :D

[@Bebeflapula]

Interesting question, I would say that the two kids are playing the same language game, but just like a game of throwing ball, its rules remain vague or undefined for new circumstances. The ball landing in the river is not part of the game, so the players have to find an agreement on what that event means for the game (at least, who has to go fetch it). I’ve recently uploaded a video titled “private language”, would love to have your feedback on it! Thanks for your comment!

[@weamhaleemi4984]

niceeeee viddd.... next video : G spot.. does it exist and what do women and men mean by it 😂😂😂😂🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@johnsolo123456]

In Arrival, she later clarifies she made that up about the kangaroo. The point is there but you should clarify that's not factually accurate.

[@Bebeflapula]

Yes, you are right, this is worth mentioning. Thank you.

[@ameen2428]

He added that in subs, right?

[@Bebeflapula]

Yes, since I saw that a lot of people use subs for the video, most will see the clarification

[@haykkhulyan6201]

Great video, but I think it could've been made a lot shorter and concise.

[@Bebeflapula]

Thank you, but I didn't find this to be one of these ideas that can be grasped easily without several examples and variation. In other words, I felt the need to put some meat onto the bones of this argument.

[@jach729]

This is a 15 minute video for something that can be explained in 2 sentences When the keeper left the goal he became the second to last defender. Since offside position is defined by the second to last defender, and one closer to the goal than the keeper in this play is offside.

[@joemomma2347]

You're really missing the point, buster

[@barres5584]

it seems like the concept of 'common sense' is missing in all of this. Why can't a couch be a couch and a chair simultaneously?

[@robf.2585]

This video is soooooooooo milked on the length.

[@av4033]

like if hate football