[Wittrs] Re: wittrs
- From: kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:37:21 -0700
SWM:
> Isn't "free will" a different concept (which thus poses a different question)
> than "freedom"? Both have the word "free" at their core, true enough, but the
> latter seems to refer to questions of political and civil liberty whereas the
> former to questions of our ability to decide and act in a way that is
> independent of exhaustive causal constraint. I would guess that it's important
> to keep these concepts distinct in attacking the problems which either kick
> up.
>
I take Wittgenstein's methods to give strong encouragement to *not*
carving the turkey so carefully, but deliberately reconnecting these
concepts ("freedom" "will" "liberty") to their roots in real life.
If one has no opportunity to exercise one's will, to write a novel, to
post a Youtube, to debate a position, then does one have "free will"?
The philosophers are *too eager* to gloss over this case of a prisoner,
want to hurry past this troubling vista to their grazing grounds, where
"free will" is something metaphysical, more "chess like".
Wittgenstein is unique among Cambridge philosophers in having
been held as a prisoner of war -- or correct me if I'm wrong about
that, still tuning in the history (the new study circle is proving a
gold mine).
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> Yes and a quite useful point, too, I think, when the issue begins to stray
> into
> the metaphysical zone of distinguishing (or trying to distinguish) between
> what
> is freely undertaken and what only feels as if it is freely undertaken.
> Insofar
> as we feel free in doing what we do, in what sense are we thus unfree?
>
In the practical world, the juries care very much about intention, and
if she drugged him first, well that matters, as some may empathize
with that sense of having "no volition" when "brainwashed" or, worse,
put under tortuous conditions (e.g. with the lives of loved ones
threatened -- or simply their jobs (livelihoods)).
What means "Free Will" when the airplane monitor screens the
list of "not welcome countries" (rough translation) and they say it's
OK to sniff you with dogs, look at you through a clothes-penetrating
spy glass?
You never signed anything explicitly surrendering your freedoms, yet
this, you are told, is the price of admission. How is it that these costs
were affixed, and by whom?
You have a USA passport. Doesn't that count for something, even
in your "own" (?) country.
Philosophy has a long history of examining such questions and perhaps
providing tentative answers, like the anthropologists are.
> My point was that the Constitution addresses questions of freedom qua liberty
> in
> both its text and context and that prisons and imprisonment were always part
> of
> the practices engaged in by the state (and the states) from the start,
> coincident with implementation of the Constitution. I suppose forced labor in
> that context could be argued as being extra constitutional (not authorized by
> existing text or justified contemporary practices). But the case would have to
> be made that such labor is clearly separate from any concept of punishment by
> incarceration as envisioned by the Constitution. I don't think it would be
> enough just to point out its affinities with classical slavery.
>
The phrase "the case would have to be made" suggests some higher court
of appeal, when the premise is the likely abrogation of the social contract
and the growth of a core Unfree State in the heart of North America.
Instead of making some case, one might instead form fringe political
party that sounds the SOS, asks national guard units to return from
overseas pronto and start protecting Americans (yes, we're all friends).
Another part of the campaign platform: a free open source suite of
voting machines (including back office counters) in every public high
school, for civics class dissection and examination, not to mention
frequent use (kids like to get polled).
So yes, the case would have to be made, but before what court of
appeal? Obviously the good people of Cyberspace will be invited to
attend.
> Certainly you don't resolve the question by mixing up notions of what we mean
> by
> "free" (freedom vs. free will), I should think.
>
I think I have resolved the issue to a satisfactory conclusion: create
a campaign platform and various media events. I see a lot of people
already doing that, so I understand this might sound annoying, as
"telling people to do what they're already doing" is a recipe for inspiring
push back.
Kirby
Other related posts:
