Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is this free will stuff?
Message-ID: <988@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 03:33:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.988
Posted: Fri Aug 16 03:33:54 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 04:25:31 EDT
References: <1085@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept
Lines: 20

Jeff, you're absolutely right that one of the reasons the free will discussion
has been going around in circles for many weeks is that the participants
do not agree on a definition.  However, don't expect that your observation
and question will help them cut through the nomenclature problem and settle
down to substantive discussion -- there is also a subsidiary argument going
on about when and how and who gets to decide on matching terms with definitions
as a preliminary to figuring out what holds true of the world.
	I don't mean that nomenclature is never important -- it can be the
focus of real conceptual analysis.  But it's frustrating to see it become
the focus when that's just an avoidance of substance.
	The debate is also producing some interesting substance, though not
entire agreement.  But even when there's agreement on some point of substance,
some parties won't allow of its relevance under their definition.
	[By the way, I say things like 'terminology' and 'nomenclature' where
people often say "that's just a matter of semantics".   There's nothing mere
about semantics, it's real and it's tough, phew boy! ]
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar