[Wittrs] Re: wittrs
- From: sekhar goteti <sekhar.goteti@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:20:12 +0530
When talking about relationships, we often use health metaphors. A friend
might be involved in a sick relationship. Another might have a healthy
marriage.
When talking about argument, we use war metaphors. When talking about time,
we often use money metaphors. But when talking about money, we rely on
liquid metaphors. We dip into savings, sponge off friends or skim funds off
the top. Even the job title stockbroker derives from the French word
brochure, the tavern worker who tapped the kegs of beer to get the liquidity
flowing.
Poetry for Everyday Life By DAVID
BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/davidbrooks/index.html?inline=nyt-per>
Published:
April 11, 2011 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo110x16.gif
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:07 AM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
--
sekhar
Other related posts:
