tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (08/09/85)
> From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) > Message-ID: <1402@pyuxd.UUCP> >> One of the criteria for selecting or creating a meaning for >> a word is usefulness. That is the epistemological principle >> of economy in concepts. >> >> It is true that the meanings of "free will" used by Rosen >> and Torek (excepting r-e-a) have been used for a long time. >> However, there is one important difference between the two. >> Rosen's meaning is entirely useless (except as an >> argumentative foil!). For that reason, it would be >> epistemological treason to yield to Rosen's contention that >> "free will" means what he says it does (despite historical >> precedent), let alone merely what he says it does; better >> to not bother arguing that point. [HUDSON] > It is true that the meaning of the word unicorn as commonly used > has been in existence for a long time. However, that meaning > is entirely useless!! It does not describe a real thing that > exists! Thus, let's change the meaning of the word unicorn so > that it becomes "useful". Let's, say, make it equivalent to > "horse". There now we have unicorns. And we all WANT to have > unicorns, just like we want to have freedom, right? So it must > have been the "right" thing to do... Faulty analogy, Rich. You would have been better off with "frizbotzin". Unfortunately, that would not have served your purpose either, would it? The criterion is not the incarnation of the concept, but the reality of its referents and constituent concepts. "Unicorn" conveys several useful concepts. The unicorn was a strange animal reported (apparently carelessly) to have been encountered on expeditions. Like other legends, this "unicorn" deserved investigation into what brought the legend about (e.g. hippopotami). (I don't know where the unicorn/ark legend came from. Perhaps it was only a literary creation of the Irish Rovers.) I have yet to hear the legend of "free will". (Was Shakespeare a libertine? :-) The unicorn is also a symbol of defiance, challenging the rule of the lion. (I recall that there were other symbolic meanings attached to the unicorn, but my reference is at home.) Absurdity needs no similar symbol; such symbols abound. Since the unicorn has a fairly clear relation to the horse in its physical appearance, it is easily the subject of cartoon and fiction. As such, it can anthropomorphically take on character. Now try portraying a "Rosenoid free will". I suspect that even Monty Python would fare badly at it. >> Rosen's definition deviates from extending the common >> meaning of "free", which is not a matter of "micro" versus >> "macro", or "now" versus "the past", but of perspective and >> degree. > Thus if I perceive or feel that I am free, I am. May I recommend > Aldous Huxley's book "Brave New World". After reading that, tell me > if those "everybody's happy nowadays" people are free. I read it (on my own, of course) long ago. It was not so much that their wills were controlled. Their minds were disabled; they were de-humanized; their basis for consciousness was obliterated (to degrees according to class). Freedom does not apply to unconscious animals. Huxley's rulers turned humans into animals. It is not surprising that an authoritarian political framework was the setting. No one -- not even the mentally nondisabled -- was free there. What Huxley illustrated was the remaining human spark under the foulest conditions. (I concede that that might not have been his intent. I grew to despise literature, thanks to a string of inept teachers. I have not read background on Huxley.) David Hudson
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
>>>It is true that the meanings of "free will" used by Rosen >>>and Torek (excepting r-e-a) have been used for a long time. >>>However, there is one important difference between the two. >>>Rosen's meaning is entirely useless (except as an >>>argumentative foil!). For that reason, it would be >>>epistemological treason to yield to Rosen's contention that >>>"free will" means what he says it does (despite historical >>>precedent), let alone merely what he says it does; better >>>to not bother arguing that point. [HUDSON] >>It is true that the meaning of the word unicorn as commonly used >>has been in existence for a long time. However, that meaning >>is entirely useless!! It does not describe a real thing that >>exists! Thus, let's change the meaning of the word unicorn so >>that it becomes "useful". Let's, say, make it equivalent to >>"horse". There now we have unicorns. And we all WANT to have >>unicorns, just like we want to have freedom, right? So it must >>have been the "right" thing to do... [ROSEN] > Faulty analogy, Rich. You would have been better off with > "frizbotzin". Unfortunately, that would not have served > your purpose either, would it? The criterion is not the > incarnation of the concept, but the reality of its > referents and constituent concepts. [HUDSON] Exactly. Free will as originally and continually defined and used in human discourse, like the word "unicorn", does not represent a real object. We don't go changing the meaning of "unicorn" to "get" unicorns to exist. The same with any other word. > "Unicorn" conveys several useful concepts. Depends on your definition of useful... > The unicorn was a strange animal reported (apparently > carelessly) to have been encountered on expeditions. Like > other legends, this "unicorn" deserved investigation into > what brought the legend about (e.g. hippopotami). (I don't > know where the unicorn/ark legend came from. Perhaps it was > only a literary creation of the Irish Rovers.) I have yet > to hear the legend of "free will". (Was Shakespeare a > libertine? :-) Philosophers over the last few thousand years have speculated about the legend of free will. (As for your final yuk there, my friend says "Free Will" is the chant of the Shakespeare Liberation Front.) > The unicorn is also a symbol of defiance, challenging the > rule of the lion. (I recall that there were other symbolic > meanings attached to the unicorn, but my reference is at > home.) Absurdity needs no similar symbol; such symbols > abound. Are you suggesting that free will exists only as a symbol? Perhaps, instead of the Unicorn, we could have #6 flailing his fists in the air shouting "I am not a number, I am a free man" as the 'symbol' of free will. (Followed by howls of laughter.) > Since the unicorn has a fairly clear relation to the horse > in its physical appearance, it is easily the subject of > cartoon and fiction. As such, it can anthropomorphically take on character. Equuimorphically, I would think. > Now try portraying a "Rosenoid free will". I suspect that even Monty Python > would fare badly at it. So? Free will can exist in fiction too. What's your point? >>>Rosen's definition deviates from extending the common >>>meaning of "free", which is not a matter of "micro" versus >>>"macro", or "now" versus "the past", but of perspective and >>>degree. >>Thus if I perceive or feel that I am free, I am. May I recommend >>Aldous Huxley's book "Brave New World". After reading that, tell me >>if those "everybody's happy nowadays" people are free. > I read it (on my own, of course) long ago. It was not so much that their > wills were controlled. Their minds were disabled; they were de-humanized; > their basis for consciousness was obliterated (to degrees according to > class). Freedom does not apply to unconscious animals. Sort of like the way we are affected by the mass media today, eh? What "basis for consciousness" are you speaking of? In "Brave New World", as on Madison Ave. today and as in the churches for thousands of years, minds are "disabled" all the time through organized effort. But the "dehumanization" you speak of only comes about because of the organization and purpose behind the effort. The same "disabling", as you call it, occurs all the time in unorganized and unplanned fashion, and perhaps without the effect of "disabling". But it is the same thing going on: the mind being formed and changed by experiences. In organized efforts, the only difference is that a specific mold of mind is sought. > Huxley's rulers turned humans into animals. It is not surprising that an > authoritarian political framework was the setting. No one -- not even the > mentally nondisabled -- was free there. What Huxley illustrated was the > remaining human spark under the foulest conditions. Again, this just shows how the authoritarians take the natural development process of the human mind and use it to their advantage by infusing specific experiences and learnings into people to get them to conform. The same thing happens without "purpose" every time you have an experience and integrate it into your mind. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr