Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site epsilon.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!egs
From: egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: freedom and reason (attn russ, rich, & laura)
Message-ID: <55@epsilon.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 15:01:10 EST
Article-I.D.: epsilon.55
Posted: Fri Apr 19 15:01:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 03:25:13 EST
References: <155@ubvax.UUCP>
Organization: BELLCORE, Livingston, NJ
Lines: 22

> I'm glad Ed brings up desire.  I agree there is a distinction between will
> and desire, but I wouldn't bring capacity into it.  Desire is what one
> wants to achieve via will (the world and one's instruments of control
> coming together), while will is what one can achieve at a given moment.
> 
> Desire is the goal to which will applies itself.

I think I'm going to go with Paul and Laura on this issue. Will is the
rational evaluation of alternatives. Desires are the choice criteria or
goal if you prefer. But one must have capacity to effect one's will or
will becomes an (even indirectly) unobservable phenomenon and it
wouldn't be very useful to talk about it. And I dare say, will would
not have developed at all without capacity, so I guess I feel compelled
(:-) to bring it into the discussion.

BTW, I don't think the concept of "free" will is nearly as useful as a
concept of "freer" will. One's will becomes freer as the number of
alternatives one can consider increases (i.e. the more one learns) and
perhaps the more subtle one's choice criteria become.

					Ed Sheppard
					Bellcore