Can you show me the rules of philosophy?
No. I never claimed there was a set of philosophical rules. I can, and you can, look up the rules for a game of chess and we can play the game. Just because ‘chess’ doesn’t relate to every single facet of what we know of reality (via in/direct experience and/or guesswork/opinion/prediction) doesn’t mean we cannot play a game of chess and understand what is and isn’t a false move. If we make a mistake then I do grant you that we merely ‘believed’ we were playing chess AND that we were genuinely playing chess too. That is more or less a discrepancy in language use because really it could also be said that we were ‘playing chess badly’ - I don’t, and haven’t, made any claim that language - what we’re using here - is anything like an exact science.
Historically mathematical logic has reigned in previously held philosophical applications of logic. The abstraction of logic from everyday colloquial speech into abstracted symbolic forms of finite use ha sled to the discovery of infinite investigation into the natural world via the sciences. Apologies if that is badly worded, I’m doing my best as quickly and efficiently as I can atm.
I’m not claiming what the “rules of philosophy” are let alone what the “rules of reality” are; and I certainly wouldn’t say outright that I can know what the rules of ‘reality’ are because I am well aware that many people use the term “reality” to apply to a whole array of different perspectives. This could be cleared up easily enough if the terms of speech are set out - which they haven’t been in the OP. This leas back to my initial point that what is TRUE can be more finely applied if the rules of play are understood. In exchanges like this we almost certainly have to give up some degree of ‘truth seeking’ because even though we share a common means of communication we’re LIMITED but, and it’s a BIG BUT, we don’t know the limits we’re working within or what the limit of the other we’re conversing with are either. We can adumbrate and work towards some proposed common field of interest and know there is such a thing, to SOME degree because we’re able to communicate.
You did get me with the “truth applies to rules not reality” - a little generosity is all I can ask for. I will make slips here and there. I don’t think I need to explain what I meant further? If so ... truth applies 100% to set rules, but for reality we’re not aware of the rules (or if there is anything humanly comprehensible as ‘rules’ that can be applied to reality beyond the limits of scientific investigation in an error based level). By this I mean that Newton’s laws are factual truths to a limited degree - as an abstract mathematic proposition it is completely true (it just doesn’t map 100% to physical reality, but does a good enough job within a certain scale).
I don’t apply logical truths to reality. I would, nevertheless, say it is true I am human - that doesn’t require me to define human 100% but I’m sure some genetic anthropologist would do a sterling job of trying to do so within a certain margin of error - which means we’re talking about a factual truth rather than a logical truth. I’ve seen it countless times on forums where people, unintentionally conflate scientific facts with logical truths so I am not complaining about your probing at all.
I am very interested in the what, when, where and how of the delineation between pure logic and the natural world - which I believe to be only a delineation of convenience, yet a necessary one for rational investigation into aspects of reality. I don’t wish to drag views on ‘consciousness’ into this thanks - that is just one more term that suffers from a multiplicity of interdisciplinary definitions I’m frankly tired to the back teeth of (another day)