About the dead is either good or nothing

“About the dead, it’s either good, or nothing but the truth,” is the saying of the ancient Greek politician and poet Chilo from Sparta (VI century BC), cited by the historian Diogenes Laertsky (III century AD) in his essay “ Life, Teachings and Opinions of Illustrious Philosophers.


A quote from "Eugene Onegin", which is often used to explain the ardent feelings of people in years or with a big difference in age. However, it is worth reading the entire stanza, it becomes clear that Alexander Sergeevich had in mind something completely different:


But to young, virgin hearts
Her impulses are beneficial,
Like spring storms to fields:

In the rain of passions they freshen up,
And they are updated and ripen -
And a mighty life gives
And lush color and sweet fruit.

But at a late and barren age,
At the turn of our years
Sad passion dead trail:
So cold autumn storms

The meadow is turned into a swamp
And expose the forest around.

Live and learn


A very famous phrase that can be heard literally from every teacher and which they like to cite as an argument to justify the importance of studying this or that subject, in fact, is incomplete and is often erroneously attributed to Lenin.


The famous “people are silent” is considered to be an image of the silent obedience of the Russian people, ready to accept any decision of the authorities and, in general, any authority. However, Pushkin is exactly the opposite. The poem ends with the fact that after the bloody massacre of the Godunovs, the new tsar is introduced to the people.

MOSALSKY: People! Maria Godunova and her son Theodore poisoned themselves with poison. We saw their dead corpses.

The people are horrified and silent.

MOSALSKY: Why are you silent? shout: Long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich!

End justifies the means


Truth in wine

The famous saying of Pliny the Elder "Truth is in wine." In fact, the phrase has a continuation "and health is in the water." In the original "In vino veritas, in aqua sanitas".

Life is short, art is forever


The phrase "Ars longa, vita brevis" in Russian has gone even further from the original than in the Latin translation, and is now understood as something like "manuscripts do not burn." In fact, this is originally a quote from Hippocrates: "life is short, the path of the arts is long, opportunity is fleeting, experience is deceptive, judgment is difficult." That is, simply a reasoning about the complexity of medicine, for the study of which a lifetime is not enough. In the original, instead of the word Ars ("art") is the Greek word τέχνη, which is not necessarily "art", but with the same success "craft" or "skill".

Religion is the opium of the people


A phrase popular with atheists is also taken out of context. Karl Marx wrote in the introduction to his Critique of the Hegelian Philosophy of Right (1843): “Religion is the air of an oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as well as the soul of a soulless situation. Just as it is the spirit of a soulless order, religion is the opium for people!” That is, religion reduces the pain of social existence in an inhuman society.

Exception proves the rule


This phrase, which is obviously illogical, is used quite incorrectly. This expression was formed as a paraphrase from Cicero's speech in defense of Lucius Cornelius Balbus the Elder. He was accused of having received Roman citizenship illegally. The case was heard in 56 BC. e.

Balbus was a native of Hades (the modern name of Cadiz), served under Pompey, with whom he became friends and was friendly; Pompey and was the sponsor of his citizenship. The background of the accusation was, as in most high-profile cases of that time, political. Although Balbus himself was politically active, the blow was certainly aimed at the triumvirs of the First Triumvirate (Caesar, Crassus and Pompey).

Balbus was defended not only by Cicero, but also by Pompey and Crassus. The case was won. In his speech, Cicero makes this argument. In some interstate agreements on the mutual recognition of Rome with neighboring countries, there was a clause explicitly excluding dual citizenship: residents of those countries could not become Roman citizens without first renouncing their own. Balba's citizenship was dual; this was the formal side of the accusation. Cicero says that since there is such an exception in some agreements, those agreements in which it is not subject to the opposite rule, namely, allow dual citizenship. In other words, if there is an exception, then there must be a rule from which that exception is made, even if that rule was never explicitly stated. Thus, the existence of exceptions confirms the existence of the rule from which these exceptions are made.

Exceptions do not confirm the rule, but the existence of exceptions confirms the existence of the rule!

02.12.2008, 01:06

I'm sorry to philosophize in the working thread, but where to look for the answer? There are many philologists here, and for the first time I met this expression in a Russian language lesson ...

Actually, I am writing in the hope that one of the thinking people present here will explain to me with a clear example how the exceptions confirm the rule?

Thanks in advance.

02.12.2008, 01:09


is there a relationship?

02.12.2008, 01:12

I was still at school, they told me that "every rule has exceptions"
is there a relationship?

Yeah, from the same opera ... But how does the presence of exceptions prove the rule?
But a common phrase ... so far no one has been able to explain :(

02.12.2008, 01:13

maybe an axiom?

02.12.2008, 01:25

Maybe the rules were deliberately drawn up so that there were exceptions to them? Otherwise there would be more of them or they would be more difficult.

02.12.2008, 01:29

"the exception confirms the rule" is an incorrect, or rather incomplete phrase - like, "drunk - the sea is knee-deep, (and a puddle is up to the ears)", etc. In the original, the statement had the opposite meaning - "the exception checks the rule". That is: "The exception only confirms the FRAMEWORK of the APPLICATION of the rule" - the rule is the rule as long as there are no exceptions to it

This expression was formed as a paraphrase from Cicero's speech in defense of Lucius Cornelius Balba the Elder. He was accused of having received Roman citizenship illegally. The case was heard in 56 BC. e.
L. Cornelius Balbus was a native of Hades (the modern name of Cadiz), served under Pompey, with whom he became friends and was friendly; Pompey and was the sponsor of his citizenship. The background of the accusation was, as in most high-profile cases of that time, political. Although Balbus himself was politically active, the blow was certainly aimed at the triumvirs of the First Triumvirate (Caesar, Crassus and Pompey).
Balbus was defended not only by Cicero, but also by Pompey and Crassus. The case was won. Balbus always tried to pursue a pacifying policy, to find a common place between enemies. He became the first naturalized (not born) citizen to become consul in Roman history, in 40 BC. e.
In his speech, Cicero makes this argument. In some interstate agreements on the mutual recognition of Rome with neighboring countries, there was a clause explicitly excluding dual citizenship: residents of those countries could not become Roman citizens without first renouncing their own. Balba's citizenship was dual; this was the formal side of the accusation. Cicero says that since there is such an exception in some agreements, those agreements in which it is not subject to the opposite rule, namely, allow dual citizenship.

In other words, if there is an exception, then there must be a rule from which that exception is made, even if that rule was never explicitly stated. Thus, the existence of exceptions confirms the existence of the rule from which these exceptions are made.

Source: internet

02.12.2008, 01:33

Perhaps the exception confirms the rule precisely by its exclusivity and the impossibility of applying other rules too?

02.12.2008, 01:37

Yep, yep, got it :)
True, such a formulation allows you to call anything you like a rule, and what does not correspond to it - an exception, to which this rule owes its existence .... eh

[email protected] added on 02.12.2008 at 01:39
Perhaps the exception confirms the rule precisely by its exclusivity and the impossibility of applying other rules too?
And most likely, this is a purely philosophical statement, used as an argument in a dispute, for example, if nothing more concrete and intelligible can be said.

Natusya, you looked into the water! This phrase was brought to me today as an argument :)

02.12.2008, 03:03

How do exceptions prove the rule?
No way. That is, a typical wolf argument: it only works in a very unequal dispute. Boltology is. :] Profanation of one of the postulates of classical logic, which has already been voiced here: if there is an exception, then there must be a rule

02.12.2008, 03:26

02.12.2008, 03:51

Like another version. I remember reading the work of some scholar on the toponymy of the Slavic lands. So he wrote something like "On these territories overgrown with forest everywhere, the toponym" Lesnoe (aya) "is not found anywhere." It would seem strange. But precisely because everything is forest here, such a toponym cannot be found, because there is no alternative to it , something unforest." Here, perhaps, this is how the phrase you are interested in is explained) Like, only if there is an exception, the rule is realized.

Interesting how :)
Everything is true for cases when the word "rule" means the majority (for example, "as a rule, they wear hats in winter"), but garbage begins when the "rule" is the norm of behavior ("Rule: the suffixes yang, an, ying are written with one N").

Viimo is really an excuse, or maybe a mistake of narrow-minded teachers

02.12.2008, 09:43

We had a math teacher who went wild when he heard that phrase. He thought that this was one of the most ugly nonsense that the school education system hammered into children's heads.

02.12.2008, 11:02

This is the philosophy of a very cool batch. In a nutshell:
Our world is imperfect. Our rules too. If there were no exceptions, then the entire set of human concepts would claim to be absolute. A few exceptions do not confirm the rules, but indicate the boundaries of a person.

It is possible that this statement belongs to God. :)

02.12.2008, 12:31

A question from a series - Can an almighty god lift an "unlifted" stone?
If you look from a simple point of view, then try cooking borscht. If you don't add
beets, then NEVER get borscht, but get soup (here's an exception that confirms the rule).
The phrase is not ours "Exceptio regulum probat" (from Latin) - "Exceptions check the rules"

There is a rule and there is an axiom (a value that does not change under any actions).

That the rule has exceptions is an axiom. That's what the word rule is for. I'm afraid to make a mistake happening from "correctly".
A rule is not a rule if there is an event, which is a set of events with some similar properties,
and this set is initially obeying the rule (as conceived by the creator of the rule) not obeying the rule.

And how do you like the phrase from "1984" by George Orwell - "Freedom is slavery, war is peace"?
PS.
Thanks TS, at least where in the section you can discuss, otherwise the section has turned into a bulletin board :)

02.12.2008, 12:45

In other words, if there is an exception, then there must be a rule from which that exception is made, even if that rule was never explicitly stated. Thus, the existence of exceptions confirms the existence of the rule from which these exceptions are made.
Exceptions do not confirm the rule, but the existence of exceptions confirms the existence of the rule!
It turns out that this is a purely legal moment. And today this phrase is pronounced out of place and out of place.

02.12.2008, 12:50

There is a rule and there is an axiom
The rule has no direct relation to the axiom.
An axiom is a statement that does not require proof. To build any system, you need a foundation. Thus axioms arose, which also subsequently underwent changes. For example, the axiom "parallels do not intersect" does not work in Lobachevsky's geometry.
And the fact that there are exceptions to the rules is, rather, a theorem that requires analytical proof. Well, or mystical, if you like.
The topic can be developed from a more interesting angle - "Are there exceptions to all the rules?" And try to prove it to the traffic police officer in practice: bl:

02.12.2008, 12:58

Confirms presuppositionally.
Presupposition *** 769;tion (from lat. prae - in front, before and suppositio - laying, pledge), tzh. presu *** 769; mption (lat. praesumptio - assumption, expectation) - a term of linguistic semantics; a necessary semantic component that ensures the presence of meaning in the statement. Taken from wikipedia %B7%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F)

Linguistic example:
The statements "he knows that I have returned" and "he does not know that I have returned" contain the same presupposition "I have returned".
Those. some part of the meaning, the "rest" of the meaning, which is contained in any sentence.

In our case:

There is a certain general field of information.
There is one part of this field - the rule. And the second part is an exception.
Knowing the exception, we can say that (general field of information) minus (exception) = (rule).

02.12.2008, 13:04

In theory, the exception is part of the rule. Everything else was invented by philologists of various stripes, who are too lazy to formalize. To justify laziness, they repeat the mantra of the exception and the rule at every turn. This is a conspiracy, I tell you truly.

02.12.2008, 13:14


For example:

02.12.2008, 13:22

In order not to fool your head, you can forget about exceptions, but simply supplement the rule with one more.
For example:
"All words are written with the suffix "-yann", etc. The second rule" The words "tin", "glass", etc. are written like this. It's just that the term "exception" itself may not be entirely successful. Since there is the risk of getting bogged down in logical contradictions.

That's what it's about, yes. Only I would write the words "tin" and "glass" differently.

02.12.2008, 13:37

02.12.2008, 13:45

In order not to fool your head, you can forget about exceptions, but simply supplement the rule with one more.
For example:
"All words are written with the suffix "-yann", etc. The second rule" The words "tin", "glass", etc. are written like this. It's just that the term "exception" itself may not be entirely successful. Since there is the risk of getting bogged down in logical contradictions.

Hmm, I think it's too early for you to forget about exceptions, they may not forgive this: idea:

02.12.2008, 14:05

Yes, I would also write and do a lot differently, but the rules ... These rules ... There are only rules around ... And if there are exceptions, then there is always a problem.
The rules of the Russian language are completely evil, which is already there. Rosenthal is burning in hell, like.

02.12.2008, 14:29

A rule is the presence of a law/statement/... for a large number of homogeneous objects. The exception is those objects that fall out of the total. But if we say that there is something exceptional (that is, falling out of the general), then we thereby recognize that we have united the rest of such objects according to this criterion.
We consider the heart on the right to be an exception, because, as a rule, for the most part, it is correct when it is on the left, i.e. set a rule.
Those. the presence of an exception confirms the existence of a rule, and "homogeneous" words simply disappeared for brevity, IMHO.

02.12.2008, 15:19

Those. the presence of an exception confirms the existence of a rule, and "homogeneous" words simply disappeared for brevity, IMHO.
The existence of both is part of the definition, therefore, the statement "the exception confirms the rule" is devoid of its own meaning, etc.

02.12.2008, 17:04

Now I’ll tell you one smart thought, just don’t be offended .. "(c) Mimino.

The excluded is called such that it is exclusive, and so much so that it attracts attention!

Example (nothing personal) :)

Statement:

"All men are f*cking..."

But! - I know for sure that Lvovich is not ... k * zel "
That is, Lvovich, in relation to this particular case, is an exception.

But!, since, undoubtedly, there are much more examples confirming the validity of the statement "All men are k * evil ..." than examples of exclusivity similar to (Lvovich), the statement "All men are k * evil ..." is quite fair.

And the exception "Lvovich" therefore attracts attention, since Lvovich is exceptional.
:idea::laugh::idea::laugh:

Once again - this example is just an illustration, and may not coincide with the opinion of the author of the maxim)))))

02.12.2008, 17:36

If too many exceptions accumulate, it's time to revise the rule. That is, exceptions test the rule for strength. As they say: once - a case, the second time - a coincidence, three times - a pattern. As soon as exceptions acquire a certain regularity, it means that either a separate rule must be drawn up for them, or the rule in relation to which they are exceptions must be revised.

In colloquial speech, incl. and in scientific discussions, the well-known expression "The exception proves the rule" is often used. Few people know that it entered the Russian language from Latin phraseological dictionaries, and even fewer people know that an error has crept into the Russian translation of the Latin expression, distorting the meaning of this expression. Forgive me colleagues who know about this error: you are part of a small group of people who know. Criticism, any of your comments will be accepted with gratitude.

We open the "Concise Dictionary of Latin Words and Expressions", we find:

Exeptio probat regulam (exeptio probat regulam) - translated into Russian means:
a) The exception proves the rule. - so it is written in the dictionary; this is not true.
b) The exception tests the rule. - so it is written in other dictionaries; It's right.

Option "a" is easily refuted by formal (mathematical) logic. We argue as follows: if one exception confirms the rule once, then two exceptions confirm the rule twice, three exceptions - three times, and so on. If the number of exceptions tends to infinity, then the rule becomes entirely composed of only exceptions, i.e. it ceases to be a rule, and thus the statement "a" becomes meaningless.

If instead of the word “rule” we put the word “law” (in which country, you yourself substitute), then our mathematical alignment will not suffer at all. And in general, people suffer or benefit from exceptions to laws, and mathematics impassively fixes these changes.

Option "b" does not make sense to check, because here it immediately becomes clear that even one exception will refute the rule, and arbitrarily many checks will not affect the rule in any way.

The crafty statement (option “a”) entered the Latin-Russian dictionary as “probat - confirms”, while the verb “probat” entered the Latin-English dictionary as “to test” - to check, test, try. Such cases occur in translated literature when a word is taken as a basis, erroneously interpreted, and inserted into a dictionary.

There is evidence for this in literature. The well-known literary character Sherlock Holmes, in a conversation with Dr. Watson, laid out this statement: “I never make exceptions to the rules. Exceptions refute the rule."

The cunning of option "a" is also found in practical life. When I worked in field geology, I had to take furrow, geochemical, hydrochemical samples. And we never said or wrote in the reports that we need samples in order to confirm something. The purpose of sampling was to establish analytically the percentage of (for example) some useful component (or metal) in a rock mass. Or technological samples were taken in order to test the ore mass in the technological process of enrichment.

And nothing here was confirmed, as you understand, but weighed, checked, tested, calculated. Everything was done according to the rules, according to the laws of physics and chemistry, using the experience of previous researchers, and no exceptions were allowed. It is ridiculous even to think if someone would start to invent some kind of exceptions. The instinct of self-preservation worked, the most reliable human instinct.

That's why I was struck by the absurdity of the statement: "The exception confirms the rule." It has become firmly established in everyday speech, and is uttered with a victorious look by many wise men, who are accustomed to glide over the surface of an object without delving into the essence.

It came to us in Soviet times, when it became fashionable to "confirm" in figures the previously known guidelines and directives of the party and government with achievements. Exceptions (i.e., not confirming the desired results) were generally not allowed. For this, officials were deprived of bonuses, posts, positions, long-awaited apartments and all sorts of prospects. A good worker was considered to be one who knew how to report ahead of schedule and with the desired results. And this has become the rule with rare exceptions.

To confirm means to please the higher authorities. This is confirmed by the still well-established and not very honest rules, to which no exceptions are a hindrance.

Reviews

"The exception proves the rule" that the law can be broken, since the exception is always stronger than the rule itself. In such a (ironic to sarcasm) context, this expression devoid of logic was understood by sane people. That's why it stuck.
A well-thought-out rule from the beginning does not need exceptions. These are: military regulations, most safety instructions, traffic rules, etc.
With respect to your opinion,

A phrase in which its beginning and end are illogical confuses many. "Exceptions only confirm the rule" - is that right? Often it becomes a kind of "trump card" in disputes. When an opponent gives an example of what refutes the judgments of another, then they say a similar aphorism, sometimes without thinking about how correct its use is. What historical detail underlies the statement, who said it? What do these words mean and how to use them correctly?

Phrase meaning

First of all, it is possible to claim that the exception confirms the rule only when the rule has been studied and proven. The first thing that comes to mind is the rules of the Russian language, where there are words that are spelled incorrectly. They contradict all the conditions, and their spelling just needs to be remembered. A similar situation happens with other laws and regulations, but more often than not, other laws simply begin to operate on them.

An example of an exception to the rule that spiders are predators is one species that happily feeds on fruits and leaves. Another example in nature is the pink Lake Hillier in Australia. Even the water from it in a glass will be pink. This is an exception, since ordinary water is always clear, and all bodies of water have different shades of blue and blue.

History of appearance

The most absurd, at first glance, combination Cicero did not say, but it was he who first used this principle in the defense of Lucius Cornelius Balba. Balba, being a native of Kadesh, was friendly with Pompey, and he gave him a second citizenship, Roman. To stir up a political dispute, detractors accused Balba of dual citizenship. The fact is that there was a clarification in Roman law: representatives of some nationalities could not have dual citizenship, that is, it was impossible to be both a Gallic and a Roman at the same time. But at the same time, there was no general ban on dual citizenship.

From this Cicero made a logical conclusion: if you need to specifically stipulate exceptions, then there is a rule to which these exceptions apply. In this case, this meant: if there is a list of nationalities that cannot obtain dual citizenship, then this clarification applies only to the listed nationalities. This is an exception. And all other peoples not mentioned in the list can receive Roman citizenship without renouncing their native. This is already a general rule, although it has not been formulated. After all, if dual citizenship were prohibited in principle, why then write a separate list, and a rather short one at that?

Cicero pointed out that Cades was not on the "prohibited list", which means that Balba can enjoy all the benefits of dual citizenship. So this kind of thinking was born.

Examples in society

The above examples of understanding that the exception only confirms the rule can also be called the principle of "not forbidden - it means allowed." Society uses this by creating its own rules. Due to the fact that they are not registered anywhere, they are cyclical and often replace each other following reforms in the government. Thus, the exception confirms the rule during the Stone Age, but may already be an independent rule in our era.

A modern example found in educational institutions: students with "excellent" are more difficult to adapt to society than those who did not do well in the program or those who were at the average level. Individuals refute this, but for the most part the rule works. The contrast between these "exceptions" and those affected by them plays a big role. So why does the exception prove the rule?

Why is the phrase correct

Precisely because the number of those on whom it acts significantly exceeds the number of exceptions. The phrase that the exception proves the rule is like the 95% law. There are a very large number of those cases when it acts and creates a rule. But it is the exceptions that set off and allow us to see how necessary this principle is, where it is applied, and how rarely it is possible to get out of its zone of action.

So, it is customary to believe that birds are flying creatures, and they need wings to fly. But what about chickens, penguins, ostriches in this case? In the presence of these examples, no one says that the rule is wrong and birds do not fly. On the contrary, the vast majority fly, and the part that does not obey the above statement emphasizes the rule and makes clear the necessary conditions for its implementation.

Exception to the rule: when not valid

It would be a gross mistake, leading a discussion with an opponent, to refute all his arguments by saying that these are only exceptions. Somewhere there will be a limit when there will be more of them than situations where the rule is valid, and then the lack of knowledge in this matter will be obvious. It is categorically impossible to hide behind this statement, since it is not a universal argument in disputes.

And on the contrary, when the sentence is formulated correctly, the phrase itself suggests itself: students with “excellent” in most cases do not adapt well in society, most birds are considered flying, the vast majority of spiders are predators, although there are other species.

Thus, the full phrase "The exception confirms the rule" is not some kind of lost ending, but Cicero's speech itself. It was built on logic, and it is she who should be guided when you need to use an aphorism. This is not a weapon in a dispute, as many use it, but a beautiful statement that has become the rule itself, of course, with its exceptions.