[lit-ideas] Re: Paying taxes for months on end
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:14:07 -0400
Judy Evans wrote:
"A man employed as a policeman may have the power to beat me up but not qua
policeman."
This is precisely the kind of sloppy thinking that I am objecting to. In
the above sentence Judy equivocates in her use of the word 'power'. In the
first part of the sentence, when she is talking about the policeman as "a
man", then she means 'power' as in physical ability. In the second part of
the sentence, when she is talking about the policeman qua policeman, then
she means 'power' as 'the right to'. It is this kind of sloppiness that
gives rise to all the nonsense surrounding talk of rights.
Judy continues:
"So you might want to stop insisting on this point -- or adopt one of the
synonyms for power that covers this case, or speak of 'powers', as in 'the
powers of the police'."
Nah. I have been clear and consistent in how I have used the word 'power',
often explicitly noting that I mean 'power-as-right-to'. I agree with Judy
that in the face of sloppy thinking one might be better served by changing
one's vocabulary. On the other hand, sloppy thinking annoys me to no end
and I am a stubborn s.o.b.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
