torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (10/22/85)
I keep wondering whether a bug is eating my articles. Look at this: >> Nonetheless, I challenge Rich to document any reputable author >> or body of literature whatsoever to support his blatant falsehood that >> his is the ONE TRUE DEFINITION. {Michael Ellis} >Huh? How exactly would one be able to do this? [...] {Rich Rosen} I posted an article a while back proposing just how one would be able to do this. Namely, Rich could quote all the definitions of "free will" from several (say, three) well-respected dictionaries; for example, Webster's, Oxford English, and any relatively well-known Dictionary of Philosophy. This might take up on the order of 50 (100?) lines of netnews text, but that would be small fry for Rich. He could then show how *each* of the definitions implies what he has been saying about something external to the realm of cause and effect being required. That would, if it could be done (which I doubt), show that the term "free will" has, and always has had, exactly one univocal definition, namely the one Rich uses. --Paul V Torek, cutting the Gordian knots torek@umich