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