rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
>>" Anyway, "you" refers to the entire physical entity >>encompassed by your existence, your body and all things in it. I don't >>see where that's getting "metaphysical" at all. > Doesn't this rather presume, without any real empirical evidence, that > personal identity resides entirely in the body? Why isn't it possible that > the mind (which is to say, the brain-state and activity) is the sole > repository of identity? Why is it so important that the activity occurs in > flesh rather than in silicon? Charles, are you envisioning a new theory that the brain is not a part of the body? If not, what are you talking about? "All things in it" certainly includes the brain, doesn't it? Or is you head not attached to your body? :-) >>Of course, the inadequacy of language is debated about and discussed. >>What do you think Dodgson was writing about when he wrote his little ditty >>on Humpty Dumpty? I noticed zilch in the way of response to my extraction >>from the Annotated Alice regarding this very topic and the very way >>people in this newsgroup seem to be doing much the same thing. > Considering the way you think it is perfectly acceptable to make up your own > private definition of phrases like "free will" and "soul", you have no room > for criticizing others. My own? And to think people like Wingate tell ME to go read a book. The straw man that this is "my definition" is not only a straw man; even cursory examination will tell you it is a lie. So why did you say it? For what purpose? >>This topic is the issue you put forth so well >>yourself---the notion of how past history and experience affect and determine >>future actions, a death blow to the notion of "free will" in its pure sense. >>It is NOT a death blow to what Torek and I have referred to as R-E-A, >>or to the notion that humans can learn the process of thinking rationally >>and learn the most open and positive ways of living IF they have the mindset >>to achieve it. What puzzles me is the insistence of so many people that >>things like this SHOULD be called "free will", even though "free will" >>means something else entirely. Are you attached to this term emotionally? > Unfortunately, this definition of free will is entirely Rich's, ... (Ahem)... > and is tied to his (again) private definition of souls (which definition > is, I might add, riddled with all kinds of inconsistencies). Which you so eloquently showed us just now... uh, didn't you? > this argument comes down to this: we refuse to acknowledge Rich's demands > to be sole arbiter over the meanings and implications of language, > particularly of philosophical terms. Shall I appoint you my "successor" to the throne? You seem to want to be sole arbiter yourself. Sorry, Charley, but even those who disagree with me violently admit that the definition I have used is a (if not the) primary definition of free will in terms of philosophical usage. What I have fought for is consistency in language and not Humptydumptyian word warping, which is what you have been doing (in reverse) when you persistently describe notions that you claim do NOT fit the mold of certain existing terms (when in fact they do) and thus should not be associated with those words (when in fact they should). > Rich seems to want to turn philosophical language into some sort of > atheistic newspeak, where it will be impossible to talk about philosophy of > religion at all. He makes up a definition of "free will" which he > (erroneously) claims to refute, and then claims that, since this or that > religion or moral system is based on "free will", the system must be false. I'm really dying to hear your explanation of what "atheistic newspeak" I am trying to foist on you. If I am attempting to make notions more objective in form, by analyzing what consequences they have to their logical conclusions, what precisely am I guilty of in your court? Again, Charley, most everyone here, even those who disagree with me, agreed that the definition I offered for free will was in fact a fundamental one in philosophical thought, and that the consequences I showed made sense, and that this DID in fact refute that definition of free will. My argument since that time has involved whether or not we can simply alter the meaning of words at our whim in order to "get" what we "want". I asked "why not use a new word for a new phenomenon", but got no answer. > Not for the moment does he bother to consider that they may not be using > his contrived definition. "Contrived"? "Made up"? "Erroneously" refuted? Why are you so willing to make these assertions and so unwilling to back them up? > Real philosophy, honest philosophy at least would consider their claims > according to their own definitions. And real men don't eat quiche. My "own" definitions. Or accepted definitions that are part of the language of common usage AND of philosophy? But not accepted by you because they might interfere with desired conclusions? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/08/85)
If it's a compliment feel insulted; if an insult, feel complimented. :-) Padraig Houlahan.