----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: thinking about free will


> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 08:07:55PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: thinking about free will
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:47:32PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> > >
> > > > Free will, pretty well be definition, means that it is possible to
> > > > make
> > >
> > > Except you don't have a useful definition of free will, as you well
> > > know.
> >
> > I have the same definition as Kant. :-)
>
> Mindless appeal to a perceived higher authority. Typical :-)

Actually, not.  The claim you made was extraordinarily strong.  I wasn't
even wrong; I have a definition that has no meaning.

Kant's definition is the definition of the Enlightenment.  Its the
definition that was used for centuries of speculation of whether we have
freedom or not.  He was the one that pointed out that it was a question
that could not be answered by pure reason.

Now, I would never say since Kant uses that definition, it must be right.
But, it has been a definition that has been around in the way I use it for
200 years.  Numerous people have used it; and have understood each other in
using it.  Given that, it is hard to assign no meaning to the statement.

Definitions do change, and people can argue over them.  But, it is
extraordinarily useful in understanding one another to at least attempt to
parse the meaning given to words by others.  Indeed, one of that advantages
I have obtained from a degree in philosophy is the ability to look at the
world from a number of different systems.  For example, I think Foucault's
analysis in Discipline & Punish is wrong; but it is certainly not
meaningless.  I parse the meaning he gives to terms, I see how he uses
them, and I consider him wrong in the end.  But, I finally understand his
system after a couple of years of wondering what he was getting at.

So, I have no problem with your beliefs differing from mine.  But, I don't
see the point in refusing to parse the meaning of ideas you differ with.

Dan M.


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to