Language and Logic (General)

by romansh , Friday, April 04, 2014, 03:14 (3675 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, April 04, 2014, 03:44

You are right. I've oversimplified what you have done. 
Thank you
> What is the point of your question, if you are not trying to substitute the causal meaning of "responsible" for the moral meaning? 
As you point out below ... that is exactly what I was trying to say.
Is there any thing devious about this?
> 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
As you well know I am a consciousness skeptic as well as a free will skeptic. So for me whether it is a supposed conscious choice or not is fairly irrelevant.-To this point I thought my logic and language has been clear. If not can you point out where. -> (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). 
Yes I agree the usual meaning the sun and people being morally responsible is a nonsense. Having said that I have clearly stated which sense I have been using the word responsible. And you have agreed with me just now.-In return, I have been accused of being intellectually dishonest twisting words etc. (not by you) Interesting.-> 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.-I don't think I have been ambiguous. 
Take Tony's denial of the use of the word responsible. Is he (in your opinion) deliberately ignoring the simple causal meaning? I find it difficult to comprehend that an educated person would deny so vociferously such a common usage. The first example I gave was from an American dictionary. 
 
> 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. -Again I never claimed it was valid in the other sense and nor do I think that.
I just happen to suspect the other sense is an illusion.-And dhw in terms logic and language is it a tactict to suggest other people have tacticts?