Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: outlook on life and free will
Message-ID: <847@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 00:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.847
Posted: Fri Apr  5 00:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 02:21:29 EST
References: <362@aesat.UUCP> <5272@utzoo.UUCP> <734@pyuxd.UUCP> <5312@utzoo.UUCP> <766@pyuxd.UUCP> <5364@utzooRe: To Laura:  outlook on l < <337@boulder.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 45
Keywords: free will

> What Does It Mean To Have Free Will ?
> 
> This is the hard one.  It is important to recognize that there are several
> parts to this question.  First one must determine what one means oneself
> when using the phrase "Free Will".  Next this meaning must be analyzed to
> determine whether it is consistent.  Assuming that a consistent concept
> can be formed, it is now of interest to share this analysis with other people.
> 
> A common occurrence will be that what I mean by "Free Will" is not what
> someone else means.
> 
> One particularly useless refutation of Paul's analysis of Free Will was
> based on the fact that certain people meant something by Free Will that
> differed from what Paul meant (and therefore naturally his analysis of
> the concept was not appropriate to those people). [GEOFFREY CLEMM]

Sorry, my friend.  Paul is not the general populace.  It was a very useful
refutation in that it showed that 1) what Paul believed to be "free will",
the concept of "rational evaluative capabilities", does exist, and 2) what
Paul believed to be "free will" is not the same as the definition of "free
will" in the sense as described in dictionaries, intellectual discourse,
and yes, common discourse on the subject of "do humans have free will?".
It was a useful refutation precisely because *PAUL* meant something by
free will that differed from what *certain people* (i.e., the rest of the
world) meant.  And not the other way around.

> To throw my hat in the ring, I would very much like to have Free Will,
> for a variety of reasons, but I am more strongly attached to having a
> consistent analysis of my concepts.  I have found no consistent analysis
> of Free Will that provides the characteristics that I would want it to
> have, nor have I been able to generate one.  It is not sufficient that
> I want to have it (although this does explain why people less devoted
> to being consistent can say that "they have free will" even though they
> have no analysis of this statement).
> 
> In this case I am left with the conclusion that until I discover a
> consistent analysis, what I mean by Free Will (which corresponds
> closely to the meaning of most postings I have seen in this news group)
> must be consigned to the same category as a Square Circle, as much as
> I would like to have Free Will or see a Square Circle.

As for the rest of this:  well said.
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr