trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/24/83)
Response to Paul Torek: {my impossibility theses (plural)}
Since you wrote this note before reading any of mine, I will only
give it small attention, and if necessary come back to it.
With respect to loving, it is clear that you are still mistaking
the *purpose* for loving with either the action of loving or the
cause of loving, or the *intended/claimed* purpose (at different places).
For example, your "SOLELY for the sake of" appears to be a *claimed* purpose.
In your example of Smith, Jones, and Taylor, I think that you are attempting
to prove that Taylor cannot really love because he is selfish. But one of
your initial assumptions was "(Smith) loves Jones and ... (Taylor) doesn't"!!
You cannot *assume* your conclusion and then claim to prove it.
As for your analogy - you seem to be really "reaching" here Paul - swallowing
poison? People who are able to "read" my intentions? A $10,000 reward
for a -$100 headache?! And then this is somehow supposed to be related
to the impossibility of loving? And quite frankly, I do not think that
it even shows that it is impossible to "*intend* at 2 a.m.". You have
merely stated your opinion that it is not impossible. In fact, I really
think that, if I were presented with the situation you claim, I could
be honest enough with myself to actually go through with it - I would
view it as taking a small loss for a very large gain. (Assuming that I
really *knew* that the only bad effect would be the $100 dollar headache.)
All I would have to do is agree to myself that I would actually drink the
poison at 3:00, and I would have no problem passing the "intention test"
at 2:00. Also, intention again refers to claimed (not actual) purpose.
In short, I deny that you have *any* valid "impossibility" theses.
Tom Craver