[Wittrs] Re: "free will" versus "willing to be free"
- From: "walto" <walterhorn@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:39:06 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> That tends to be an insipid not-question entertained by nerds with
> too much free time on their hands, thinkers of no consequence
> who had enough money and privilege to stay out of harm's way
> in some cloistered environment>
Many activists would say the same about internet posting (or indeed
philosophical speculation/argumentation) generally--however the pundit comes
down on free will...or anything else. One could always be doing something more
important, no?
Anyhow, I don't think the claim that arguing for P is a waste of precious time,
is much of an argument for arguing that not-P. And, FWIW, I agree with SWM that
mixing these political questions with the hoary philosophical question is
largely a category mistake. That no tyrant (governmental, corporate, or
otherwise) is stopping me from lifting my arm right now is completely
irrelevant. It's reminiscent of Johnson's kicking a rock to refute Berkeley.
W
Other related posts:
