[Wittrs] Re: On Discussions about Free WIll
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:06:24 -0700
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 4:42 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [Wittrs] Re: On Discussions about Free WIll
>
> Kirby, at the risk of opening another can of worms (which I probably won't
> pursue anyway because it promises to be unproductive), aren't your claims
> below
> to engage in certain dubiously justified word games (i.e, about what counts as
> "will", "American", "free", and so forth), based on a claim of Wittgensteinian
> authority which, in fact, has little relevance to such a move? Can
> Wittgenstein
> be invoked to justify our politics or ideology?
I take "dubious" to mean something like "we might imagine alternative language
games" (no argument there).
I don't take this as argument from authority as I'm more just showing what's
plastic in language, as Wittgenstein did.
I'm influenced, but not "made right" by his work.
> There's value to applying Wittgenstein's insights to the philosophical
> questions
> that present themselves in our discourse. But is there real value in using
> such
> a strategy to justify making political points about who, say, is an American
> when we already recognize that "American" has various meanings in different
> contexts, and no one is disputing it or claiming otherwise? And what's the
> value
> in claiming that the American prison system violates Constitutional provisions
> based on such word play which, in fact, has nothing to do with the text of the
> Constitution itself but, rather, with manipulating the usage of terms like
> "free", "servitude" and so forth in our ordinary discourse?
There's a way some people have of carving out "philosophy" as something
anemic that's all about supposedly "logical" arguments of no real consequence
(language idling) with which Wittgenstein was especially impatient.
The way conversations about "free will" typically play out, in such a vacuum,
with no discussion of imprisonment or conscription, chains of command,
is a case in point.
Wittgensteinians such as Sean typically make this point by "chiding" i.e.
*so what* if we prove Free Will and / or God "exist" in some erudite "heads
on a pin" language game of concern only in stale scholastic environments?
>
> Questions of Constitutional jurisprudence hinge on what THAT document actually
> says, on how it is to be read and on the context in which the Constitutional
> text was written (and so historically understood). Relevant to this last, of
> course, is the chain of interpretation that has come down to us by those who
> have used and interpreted the Constitution over time (e.g., from the get-go
> the
> users of the Constitution, and accompanying jurisprudence, have accepted that
> the Constitutional provision that gives Congress the power to declare war is
> less about formal declarations than about Congress having the power to prevent
> presidents from going to war, or of lining up with presidents in support of
> wars
> via legislative votes that are not explicit declarations of war per se).
>
> You cannot resolve such questions by importing Wittgensteinian linguistic
> analysis into the discourse.
>
> SWM
The argument we were presented with at the conference at Reed College
was in the offered in the spirit of a real Constitutional debate.
The analysis was that the USA has never figured out how to eliminate
slavery, with post Civil War "separate but equal" clauses setting up an
apartheid chapter, followed by where we are today: mass incarceration
and forced labor.
The speaker was saying she'd had this debate with lots of bright legal
scholars and they hadn't really shot down her interpretation of the 13th
Amendment.
If you're paying your debt to society by voluntarily choosing community
service over incarcertation and/or fines, that's one thing, but if you're
locked up *and* made to work against your will for no compensation,
that's actually just an opportunistic meme virus taking advantage of the
fact that the USA Constitution has not been effectively or adequately
defended by those who consider themselves loyal to its core values.
Perhaps the national guard should be nationalizing prison systems
that are out of compliance with the anti-slavery laws of this land, and
reorganizing them. USAers have been left defenseless, against many
forms of ruthless predator.
I think a Wittgensteinian approach to such debates could be productive.
He took a strong interest in issues of social justice and proper treatment
of prisoners of war. I can't imagine him being alive today and remaining
silent about Gitmo for example, whereas many an academic philosopher
has branded him or herself a coward by remaining silent whereof much
could be said.
When it comes to word games, I agree with Werner Erhard who said
"there is semantics, and there is nothing." In other words, for one
side in a debate to say the other side is playing "word games" is the
ultimate in the pot calling the kettle black.
Kirby
Other related posts:
