Language and Logic (General)

by dhw, Thursday, April 03, 2014, 12:58 (3670 days ago) @ romansh

Like the discussion on emergence, this thread has spiralled out of control.-Dhw: By claiming the two meanings are the same, Romansh is twisting language into a false logic, which is precisely the error I had hoped we could avoid. Romansh does not need such a tactic to make the case against free will, and since he agreed with much of what I wrote in my first post, I have to say I am deeply disappointed that he has now deliberately resorted to it! I shall have a little sob into my pillow. Good night, folks.

ROMANSH: Nowhere did I claim this dhw, I don't think this.
-You are right. I've oversimplified what you have done. You wrote: "I did not say people can't be held responsible, actually quite the opposite. But in the same sense the sun is responsible for hurricanes. Are you denying the sun is responsible for a good chunk of the weather we get?" What is the point of your question, if you are not trying to substitute the causal meaning of "responsible" for the moral meaning? Your question is a way of saying that since we cannot deny that the sun is the cause, it's logical to agree that people can be held responsible "in the same sense" that they are the cause ... not that they have made conscious decisions to act in a certain way (the usual meaning of the word in, say, the Hitler context.) So when you say "quite the opposite" (i.e. you believe people ARE responsible for their actions), you are actually arguing they are (causal meaning) and they are not (moral meaning). Your arguments against free will are clear and sharp, but I'm afraid I can only see this one as an example of language being twisted ambiguously and equivocally to fit belief. You simply do not need this kind of device to make your case, and it only obscures the real issues.-Tony, I hate to cross swords with you since I agree with your objections to Romansh's tactic, but language evolves, and you cannot stop it from doing so. Romansh's Concise Oxford example is an accepted use of the word: an electrical short circuit was responsible for the fire. The floods were responsible for the deaths of over a hundred people (Longman Dic. of Contemporary English). If you reject such examples, you are ignoring the lesson King Canute taught us at the seaside. My objection to Romansh's argument (which actually fits in with your own) is not that this particular use of the word is not English, but that in order to support his belief he is using a meaning valid in one context as if it were valid in another. And I might add that all this is leading us away from the actual subject of free will (despite David's gallant efforts to bring us back), which is one of the dangers of playing with language. My original post has been a miserable failure, as it has engendered precisely the sort of discussion I was trying to prevent!