Excursus

The No Rules Paradox?

Last year, one of the cretins in one of Quincy’s classes produced this feeble response to one of the exercises in the book. It re-emerged from under a pile of papers on my desk a few weeks ago, but it only struck me yesterday that this is another paradoxical statement. If the best rule is “No rules”, then, I’d assume, the rule should apply to itself. If you don’t state such a rule (because it’s better not to state it), then how would anyone know it is a rule? But more than that, it suggests that it’s impossible to have no rules because even saying that there are no rules is to state a rule.

Nor does it matter that it’s been stated by some idiot school boy. Of course, I suppose you could ask what sort of statement “The best rule is no rules” is. It defines the best rule, but isn’t really a rule itself. But if the list of rules starts 1. There are no rules, then the statement is contradictory unless this is meant to be, say, a principle which, unlike a rule, isn’t meant to be enforceable. One way to avoid this is to state it in positive terms, such as “You may do anything you like” or “The best rules are those which minimally interfere in your life”.