Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Emotions and choice Message-ID: <1444@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 20:30:57 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1444 Posted: Wed Aug 7 20:30:57 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 20:27:17 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP><591@unc.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 41 > As Rich has been trying to point out, there is faulty reasoning here. > [Note: I'm not just refering to Robert, who I hope won't be too > offended at becoming an example.] First, Robert seems to be making the > unsupported assumption that there *must* be a choice involved in this > situation. Secondly, he makes another unsupported assumption that there > *must* be someone responsible. [!!!] Neither Rich nor I seem to see the > necessity of either assertion. Bravo, Ed! What a guy. This assumption seems to be rampant. "Well, if you say you're not responsible, then you're making others responsible, aren't you?" or the converse "If other people aren't responsible for what happens to me, *I* must be!" > And both assertions have been given as a > matter of faith, with nothing but a circular semantic argument or two to > support them: arguments that essentially involve re-defining the words > ``choice'' and ``responsibility''. > > I can make the argument that I am responsible for EACH and EVERY perception > I have of the world, and of every one of my actions, (even if I ``choose'' > to be unaware of them or their implications). But when I do so I have > just taken the word ``responsible'' and hollowed out all semantic content. > It becomes suitable for incorporation into tautologies and useless > platitudes. > > The same thing can be said for re-defining the word ``choice''. Why, > lets make EVERYTHING a ``choice''. That would make everyone > ``responsible'', which is just what we set out to prove! Of course, we've > only ``proven'' something in a jargon-laden world of our own imagining. Exactly. This seems to be a common technique for getting the things we wish for to exist, by semantically disintegrating the components till they are obscured or meaningless. > But once you've done these semantic shenanigans, don't go back and > assume that you've managed to change the nature of the world one bit. Tell that to certain people I converse with, please... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr