Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Skinnerist Brainwish in net.philosophy
Message-ID: <222@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 21:42:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.222
Posted: Tue Oct 22 21:42:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Oct-85 01:07:36 EDT
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Distribution: net
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 81

>>>..some have simply asserted that free will as defined does exist without
>>>naming a mechanism (just assuming that one exists, sometimes because they
>>>have a specific conclusion in mind, like "responsibility"). -- BF Rosen
>
>>    I will ignore the Rich's undemonstrated attribution of ulterior motive
>>    in the above -- that justifying `responsibility' is somehow the purpose
>>    behind free-will arguments. The two are independent issues.
>
>Yet it is the fundamental motive behind doing this.  When you choose
>to build a system of beliefs backwards from an assumed conclusion for
>which there is no evidence, you MUST have a reason for choosing THAT
>conclusion, right?  [ROSEN]

Rich Rosen ought to know as this is exactly his practice.  He doesn't
like the idea of free will, perhaps because he doesn't like the idea
of being responsible for his actions.  So building backwards from
this wished-for conclusion that there is no such thing as free will,
he posits as The Definition of Free Will a definition of something
that most people today would agree doesn't exist, and then subjects
anyone who dares to disagree with him to long sarcastic ad hominem
tirades rather than presenting any arguments for his position.  I
can't think of any other motivation for thinking that there is a One
True Definition of free will.

Like all philosophically interesting terms, "free will" has no
single, cut-and-dried definition.  If it had one, as Hume pointed
out, the controversy over "liberty and necessity" would long since
have come to a resolution.  The same is true of such terms as duty,
justice, right, good, evil, person, cause, truth, explanation, mind,
action, rationality, reason, utility, pleasure, nature, and just
about any term commonly used in philosophical discourse.  Maybe Rich
could enlighten us and put an end to centuries of philosophical
debate by posting the One True Definition of each of these terms.
Seriously, this is why there is such a thing as philosophy and not
merely a lexicon in which we can look up the answers.  

That is why Plato wrote dialogues consisting entirely of a search for
an understanding of such terms as excellence (arete), courage, and
justice, sometimes failing to find one.  His answer to the question
What is justice? is the entire *Republic*.  Any contemporary answer
to the same question would have to be explained at book length (or
even specified at book length, as in M. Walzer's *Spheres of
Justice*.)  There is no more a single cut-and-dried definition of
justice today than there was in Plato's day, and there is no reason
to expect that things will ever be any different.  BTW, in Book I of
the *Republic* an ancestor of Rich Rosen's named Thrasymachus
appears, and Socrates deals with him in an instructive manner.  Of
course I'm not suggesting, heaven forbid, that anyone actually *read*
Book I of the *Republic*.  

The question "Do people possess free will?" has no yes-or-no answer.
Merely as stated, the question has no clear meaning, and the task of
philosophy is to unwrap the term "free will" and figure out what
people are talking about when they talk about free will, just as the
moral philosopher unwraps "virtue" and "duty" and the political
philosopher unwraps "justice" and "right."  So there are varieties of
free will, and some of them are worth wanting, as Dennett believes.
Another example:  Are utilities (satisfactions) interpersonally
comparable?  The answer is clear:  It all depends on what you mean by
"utility" or "satisfaction."  There is no single "correct" definition
for either term.

>Wow!  All I can say here is, what you guys were unable to do for Dennett's
>"Why I Want to Change the Definition of Free Will So That I Can Have It"
>(alias "Elbow Room"), Ellis has just successfully done for Skinner:  given
>me a good reason to read a book of his.  [ROSEN]

The reason I read books is that I think that the author may have
something to teach me that I didn't know or understand before.
Obviously this reason does not apply to people who know the answers
already.

I believe Rosen has abundantly earned himself the right to be ignored
and left in peace.  Why don't we all declare Rich the WINNER OF THE
DEBATE.  You were right all along, Rich, and we, your opponents, were
totally and irretrievably wrong.  We hereby freely acknowledge and
confess our grievous and inexcusable error.  

Now can we get on with some serious discussion?
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes