Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!sjuvax!tmoody
From: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Science & Philosophy vs Rosenism
Message-ID: <2303@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Oct-85 07:56:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.2303
Posted: Tue Oct  8 07:56:43 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 15:12:23 EDT
References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> <1510@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody)
Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA.
Lines: 37
Summary: 

In article <1843@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>.UUCP>
>Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
>Lines: 50
>
>>>Free will means the ability
>>>to act independently of physical constraints, whether from the surrounding
>>>environment, or the insides of one's own body.  Think about what religionists 
>>>mean when they speak of "free will" to choose between right and wrong. Clearly
>>>they are referring to an ability to make a choice regardless of one's physical
>>>make-up:  choosing not to sin despite the physical desire to do so.  Can you
>>>act contrary to your physical make-up without an external agent to do so for
>>>you INDEPENDENT of your make-up? [Rich Rosen]

I think that it is important for people to continue to remind Rich Rosen
how wrong he is about this.  This analysis represents ONLY ONE of the
historically conspicuous attempts to define "free will."  Even as such, it
is a distortion.  Descartes was perhaps as far in this direction as anybody,
but I don't think that even he would have claimed that free action takes
place "regardless of one's physical make-up."  Still, I will grant that
Rich Rosen's roughly Cartesian definition has had its defenders [Yes,
that's right, definitions have to be defended or criticized according to
their success in capturing what people mean when they talk about a
phenomenon, when that phenomenon resists facile description].  Rich Rosen
should grant that there are other definitions, or at least grant that
he doesn't really know.

>Oh, great, so now a person's internal state, which comes from the wide variety
>of things many of which are beyond his/her control, if it leads them to
>do "wrong", makes them a sinner! 

Exactly what does "control" mean here?

Todd Moody       {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody
Philosophy Department
St. Joseph's U.
Philadelphia, PA   19131