Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: A Figment of the Imagination ( 1/2 of life - RLR ) Message-ID: <661@psivax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 14:04:20 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.661 Posted: Fri Aug 16 14:04:20 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 20:37:24 EDT References: <3518@decwrl.UUCP> <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 27 Summary: In article <1451@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >On the contrary, it's a perfectly valid analogy because the subject >of the words is irrelevant to the analogy. If you find that something >you have defined, some word, does not represent a thing that exists >(e.g., some mythical creature/phenomenon), you can't just change the >definition to mean something else on the fly just because you feel >like it, just because you WANT a world in which centaurs, or unicorns, >or free wills, exist. > Well, I also say the analogy is invalid, but for a different reason. The term 'free"(and also the phrase Free Will) has more than on accepted, historically valid definition. Yours is one, but the one we are using is by no means new. The word "unicorn" has only one accepted definition, so using it in another sense violates the accepted usage of the word. In the case of "free" there is no such problem, it is perfectly acceptible, when a word has several meanings, to use the one which is most useful in a given context. All we are saying is that the definition you have chosen is less useful than the alternative definition. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen