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