Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!tdh
From: tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: the unicorn
Message-ID: <262@frog.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 16:22:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: frog.262
Posted: Fri Aug  9 16:22:50 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 23:34:16 EDT
Reply-To: frog!tdh
Organization: Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA
Lines: 81

> From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
> Message-ID: <1402@pyuxd.UUCP>

>> One of the criteria for selecting or creating a meaning for
>> a word is usefulness.  That is the epistemological principle
>> of economy in concepts.
>> 
>> It is true that the meanings of "free will" used by Rosen
>> and Torek (excepting r-e-a) have been used for a long time.
>> However, there is one important difference between the two.
>> Rosen's meaning is entirely useless (except as an
>> argumentative foil!).  For that reason, it would be
>> epistemological treason to yield to Rosen's contention that
>> "free will" means what he says it does (despite historical
>> precedent), let alone merely what he says it does; better
>> to not bother arguing that point. [HUDSON]

> It is true that the meaning of the word unicorn as commonly used
> has been in existence for a long time.  However, that meaning
> is entirely useless!!  It does not describe a real thing that
> exists!  Thus, let's change the meaning of the word unicorn so
> that it becomes "useful".  Let's, say, make it equivalent to
> "horse".  There now we have unicorns.  And we all WANT to have
> unicorns, just like we want to have freedom, right?  So it must
> have been the "right" thing to do...

Faulty analogy, Rich.  You would have been better off with
"frizbotzin".  Unfortunately, that would not have served
your purpose either, would it?  The criterion is not the
incarnation of the concept, but the reality of its
referents and constituent concepts.

"Unicorn" conveys several useful concepts.

The unicorn was a strange animal reported (apparently
carelessly) to have been encountered on expeditions.  Like
other legends, this "unicorn" deserved investigation into
what brought the legend about (e.g. hippopotami).  (I don't
know where the unicorn/ark legend came from.  Perhaps it was
only a literary creation of the Irish Rovers.)  I have yet
to hear the legend of "free will".  (Was Shakespeare a
libertine? :-)

The unicorn is also a symbol of defiance, challenging the
rule of the lion.  (I recall that there were other symbolic
meanings attached to the unicorn, but my reference is at
home.)  Absurdity needs no similar symbol; such symbols
abound.

Since the unicorn has a fairly clear relation to the horse
in its physical appearance, it is easily the subject of
cartoon and fiction.  As such, it can anthropomorphically
take on character.  Now try portraying a "Rosenoid free
will".  I suspect that even Monty Python would fare badly at
it.

>> Rosen's definition deviates from extending the common
>> meaning of "free", which is not a matter of "micro" versus
>> "macro", or "now" versus "the past", but of perspective and
>> degree.

> Thus if I perceive or feel that I am free, I am.  May I recommend
> Aldous Huxley's book "Brave New World".  After reading that, tell me
> if those "everybody's happy nowadays" people are free.

I read it (on my own, of course) long ago.  It was not so
much that their wills were controlled.  Their minds were
disabled; they were de-humanized; their basis for
consciousness was obliterated (to degrees according to
class).  Freedom does not apply to unconscious animals.

Huxley's rulers turned humans into animals.  It is not
surprising that an authoritarian political framework was
the setting.  No one -- not even the mentally nondisabled --
was free there.  What Huxley illustrated was the remaining
human spark under the foulest conditions.  (I concede that
that might not have been his intent.  I grew to despise
literature, thanks to a string of inept teachers.  I have
not read background on Huxley.)

				David Hudson