Free Will

[henry quirk]

just read the literature they produce, and you'll know beyond all possibility of doubt I'm telling you the truth.

I reckon B has read and does read that literature. She probably finds it all refreshing and bold and intellectual.

[Immanuel Can]

just read the literature they produce, and you'll know beyond all possibility of doubt I'm telling you the truth.

I reckon B has read and does read that literature. She probably finds it all refreshing and bold and intellectual.

Heh. That's exactly what the posers and pretenders count on...that people will read their jargon-salad and be too confused or afraid to point out what nonsense it often contains, because they can't really decode it.

[RCSaunders]

Recent posts from Immanuel Can and RCSaunders are interesting for their illustrating the efforts a particular demographic will make to defend anti-intellectualism.

What, "demographic," is that?

Isn't judging people in terms of some race, ethnicity, or demographic considered, "racism," these days? Well, go ahead then. If you cannot counter someone's else's view with reason or evidence, just label them as members of some disreputable demographic or category. There's a name for that.

It is academia that is making all the attacks on knowledge and reason. There are no true autodidacts or polymaths touting critical theory, cultural Marxism, or post modernism, but every academic institution is crawling with such anti-intellectual vermin. They are even beginning to infect STEM departments.

[RCSaunders]

I have , and do. What education does for you is teach you how to judge what is probably true and what is probably false.

If you consider yourself, "educated," and believe what you were taught, it obviously failed to teach you how to judge what is true and false. Only what is actually true has any value. Every bad thing that has ever been done was based on what one thought was, probably true.

[RogerSH]

Again, my apologies for the delay, Roger...I've been offline for some time. I'm back now, and your insightful thoughts merit first consideration.

It's actually not. Identity (using the word to refer to sameness, not human "identity") does not cause anything. It's simply a recognition that an item at this chronological time is the same one as at a prior chronological time.

But nothing in that relationship has been "caused." It's purely descriptive.

The point is that identity over time, assuming that it is a necessary identity and not a purely contingent one, is a special case of causation. If something is in state S1 at time T1 and also at later time T2, but would be in state S2 at T2 if it was in state S2 at T1, that is a necessary identity, then the later state is determined by the earlier one.

It's not a causal relation, though. It is not true to say that my identity at T1 caused me to be me at T2. Rather, identity picks out a particular ontological (not causal) feature: namely, that I am me at both times.

So it's not right to say T1 "determined" how T2 would be. It's just that it would be the same entity implicated at two different times and in two different states.

This is actually routine. If somebody sees a picture of an 8-year-old child holding up a fish he's caught, and he asks, "Who is that?" he's not being misled if you say, "That's me." You were 8 when you caught the fish; maybe you're 48 now. But you were the same entity, and the eight-year-old was not causally responsible for you being the 48-year-old. You were the same entity, at two different times, and in two different states.

So no, identity isn't any kind of case or subset of causality at all. It's not a "special case of causation." It's a case of identity.

Thanks for giving my thoughts this consideration. I have also been offline, and don’t have much time today, but I’ve taken a copy of your responses to mull over. There are some points that may be resolvable by agreeing on a form of words. Others of a more theological nature we should probably draw a line under!

Just one point today under the first heading. I’m using causality or determinism to mean “how a state of affairs at a later time is the consequence of a state of affairs at an earlier time”, which includes identity as well as causality in your sense. Maybe you have a broken fishing rod in your cupboard because (a) you broke a fishing rod last year, and (b) the fishing rod in your cupboard is the same fishing rod. Can you suggest an alternative term for how, in general, later states of affairs depend on earlier ones?

[Belinda]

Recent posts from Immanuel Can and RCSaunders are interesting for their illustrating the efforts a particular demographic will make to defend anti-intellectualism.

What, "demographic," is that?

Isn't judging people in terms of some race, ethnicity, or demographic considered, "racism," these days? Well, go ahead then. If you cannot counter someone's else's view with reason or evidence, just label them as members of some disreputable demographic or category. There's a name for that.

It is academia that is making all the attacks on knowledge and reason. There are no true autodidacts or polymaths touting critical theory, cultural Marxism, or post modernism, but every academic institution is crawling with such anti-intellectual vermin. They are even beginning to infect STEM departments.

I know that I ought not to be emotional about anti-intellectuals, and I should try to be objective.

[Immanuel Can]

I know that I ought not to be emotional about anti-intellectuals, and I should try to be objective.

I don't suspect that RC is "anti-intellectual": why do you think he is?

As for me, I'm anti-jargon. That's "pro-intellectual," especially if "intellectual" means "writing and thinking profoundly and coherently." I am, however, against the posers, the pretenders and the intellectual obscurantists.

Why wouldn't you be? Do you suppose that fidelity to "intellectualism" should include tolerating and not calling out hogwash? Or do you suppose that academia is well served if we have no standards of judgment of quality?

That would seem an odd presumption.

[Belinda]

I know that I ought not to be emotional about anti-intellectuals, and I should try to be objective.

I don't suspect that RC is "anti-intellectual": why do you think he is?

As for me, I'm anti-jargon. That's "pro-intellectual," especially if "intellectual" means "writing and thinking profoundly and coherently." I am, however, against the posers, the pretenders and the intellectual obscurantists.

Why wouldn't you be? Do you suppose that fidelity to "intellectualism" should include tolerating and not calling out hogwash? Or do you suppose that academia is well served if we have no standards of judgment of quality?

That would seem an odd presumption.

Of course you should object to and rebut hogwash and lies!

Are there specific jargons you disapprove of, or do you think all jargons are used only to mystify and tell lies?

[Immanuel Can]

Are there specific jargons you disapprove of, or do you think all jargons are used only to mystify and tell lies?

I'll repeat, if I may. Orwell did not say "Never use a big word." He said, "Never use a big word where a small, clear, simple one is available." (my paraphrase)

There are times when one has to reach for a more sophisticated, lengthy, esoteric kind of term. There is a measure of jargon that is involved in all specialized areas of study. And that's legit: one needs some recourse to technical terms when the discussion becomes exceedingly technical and deep. But that sort of measured use of concept-terms is not what I'm pointing to. It's the gratuitous use of jargon for no more sophisticated purpose than confusing the rubes and impressing the semi-informed...a thing widely practiced in the Humanities.

I can assure you, I'm able to play that game if I were to want to . I can lapse into jargon so dense and convoluted that the average rube is going to be thoroughly intimidated and lose all track of my meaning. But I think that doing that is contemptible and dishonest, if I have the means to speak simply and clearly about exactly the same matter, and not to lose any content thereby. How is clear thinking and openness to critique well-served by obfuscating terms? It's not.

A writer should be honest, clear and forthcoming...as often as the necessary subject matter allows.

Orwell agreed.

[RogerSH]

This is from an unpublished article:

.... A concept is not an abstraction. It is the actual existents identified by the definition a concept refers to and means. It means those actual existents with all that can be known about them whether anything is known about them or not....

A particular concept identifies a single existent and is frequently a proper noun. Most concepts identify categories of existent and are called universals. Most of the confusion about concepts are related to misunderstanding what a universal concept is....

The word, "book," stands for the concept, "book." A book is any actual existent with all the attributes that identify it as a book, and all other attributes that differentiate it from all other books. "Book," means an actual book with all its actual attributes as it actually exists. It does not mean the definition of a book, or an abstraction of a book and does not, "stand in for," a book, it identifies to an actual book and that is what it means.

What a concept means is called the concept's referrents. The concept means the actual existents referred to with all their actual attributes exactly as they are whether those attribute are known or not. That is why a child using the word tomato, who knows little more about a tomato than what it looks and tastes like and a botanist specializing in tomatoes mean exactly the same thing by the concept tomatoe—an actual tomatoe with all of a tomatoe's attributes, (qualities, properties, and characteristics)....

Concepts are totally man-made, created as the means of identifying and holding in consciousness the ability to think about what is not directly perceived, like what one had for breakfast yesterday and what one plans to do tomorrow. There is nothing mysterious or magical about concepts except for the almost magical power they give human beings to discover, know, and use the world that exists.

...

I don’t deny that this is an interesting and clearly expressed account of “concepts”, a lot of which makes sense to me, but I’m curious to know how you avoid objections along the following lines.

Reality is highly structured, but the structure does not determine its own boundaries: that needs a mental input.

For example, considering the universal concept “dog”, how far do you go back in the line of ancestors of a modern dog before you reach a non-dog whose offspring was a dog? Or taking the classic case of an individual, does the concept “Venus” include the atmosphere of the planet? If so, how far out? If not, does it include gas entrapped in the rock? Does it include that meteorite that is just now burning up in the atmosphere? Or take a natural kind like water. Does that concept include ice? Does it include heavy water (D2O)? And so on. It seems clear to me that the answer always has to be, that it depends on the context. In fact, typically the structure of reality consists of indefinite constellations of closely aligned categories.

But that is not all, because in most cases it doesn’t matter which particular boundary is used! When I comment “how bright Venus is tonight” I am indifferent as to whether the minute fraction of that light reflected from dust in its atmosphere is included in the reference to “Venus”. Thus, in my mind, I have replaced the concrete reality of an indefinite number of closely aligned boundaries by an abstraction, an imagined single clear boundary – a protean abstraction moreover, which adjusts appropriately to each context. Then what the word, “dog” or “Venus” or “water” or whatever is pointing to is a context-specific version of this protean abstraction. So the problem with saying that a concept is a reference that includes all the members of a particular class, is that the number of members is in general undefined and unfixed, as indeed is the exact criterion of membership.

[RCSaunders]

This is from an unpublished article:

.... A concept is not an abstraction. It is the actual existents identified by the definition a concept refers to and means. It means those actual existents with all that can be known about them whether anything is known about them or not....

A particular concept identifies a single existent and is frequently a proper noun. Most concepts identify categories of existent and are called universals. Most of the confusion about concepts are related to misunderstanding what a universal concept is....

The word, "book," stands for the concept, "book." A book is any actual existent with all the attributes that identify it as a book, and all other attributes that differentiate it from all other books. "Book," means an actual book with all its actual attributes as it actually exists. It does not mean the definition of a book, or an abstraction of a book and does not, "stand in for," a book, it identifies to an actual book and that is what it means.

What a concept means is called the concept's referrents. The concept means the actual existents referred to with all their actual attributes exactly as they are whether those attribute are known or not. That is why a child using the word tomato, who knows little more about a tomato than what it looks and tastes like and a botanist specializing in tomatoes mean exactly the same thing by the concept tomato—an actual tomato with all of a tomato's attributes, (qualities, properties, and characteristics)....

Concepts are totally man-made, created as the means of identifying and holding in consciousness the ability to think about what is not directly perceived, like what one had for breakfast yesterday and what one plans to do tomorrow. There is nothing mysterious or magical about concepts except for the almost magical power they give human beings to discover, know, and use the world that exists.

...

I don’t deny that this is an interesting and clearly expressed account of “concepts”, a lot of which makes sense to me, but I’m curious to know how you avoid objections along the following lines.

Reality is highly structured, but the structure does not determine its own boundaries: that needs a mental input.

For example, considering the universal concept “dog”, how far do you go back in the line of ancestors of a modern dog before you reach a non-dog whose offspring was a dog? Or taking the classic case of an individual, does the concept “Venus” include the atmosphere of the planet? If so, how far out? If not, does it include gas entrapped in the rock? Does it include that meteorite that is just now burning up in the atmosphere? Or take a natural kind like water. Does that concept include ice? Does it include heavy water (D2O)? And so on. It seems clear to me that the answer always has to be, that it depends on the context. In fact, typically the structure of reality consists of indefinite constellations of closely aligned categories.

But that is not all, because in most cases it doesn’t matter which particular boundary is used! When I comment “how bright Venus is tonight” I am indifferent as to whether the minute fraction of that light reflected from dust in its atmosphere is included in the reference to “Venus”. Thus, in my mind, I have replaced the concrete reality of an indefinite number of closely aligned boundaries by an abstraction, an imagined single clear boundary – a protean abstraction moreover, which adjusts appropriately to each context. Then what the word, “dog” or “Venus” or “water” or whatever is pointing to is a context-specific version of this protean abstraction.

What's the objection? When you ask, "For example, considering the universal concept 'dog,' how far do you go back in the line of ancestors of a modern dog before you reach a non-dog whose offspring was a dog?" since, "dog," means any and every entity with the attributes that differentiate a dog from all other entities, any entity that does not have all the attributes of a dog is not a dog.

I have no idea what you mean by a, "boundry." A concept does not do anything except identify an entity. It does not say anything about what it identifies (except whatever the definition requires to make the identification possible). Before it was known that the, "morning star," and, "evening star," were the same planet (venus) the concept, "morning star," identified an entity which appeared in the morning, and the, "evening star," identified an entity which appered in the evening, though very little was known about either of them. When it was eventually discovered that they were actually the same entity seen under different circumstances, the original concept was still valid. There is an actual entity identified by, "evening star," and there is an actual entity identified by, "morning star." It just happens that it is the same entity in both cases, but it was still the same entity, exactly as it is, that is identified by either term, "evening star," or, "morning star," no matter how little or much was or was not known about it. The new knowledge of what the evening and morning star actually are is knowledge about the entity identified by the concept, not knowledge about the concept.

So the problem with saying that a concept is a reference that includes all the members of a particular class, is that the number of members is in general undefined and unfixed, as indeed is the exact criterion of membership.

That's right. A universal concept is open-ended. It does not include referents as a, "collection," but as a class or category and simply means every entity with the attributes of this kind of an existent, however few or many are included.

I cannot provide a complete epistemological explanation here so please refer to either (here on Philosophy Now):
Epistemology, Concepts

or this is a better easier-to-read version:
Epistemology, Concepts

[Belinda]

Are there specific jargons you disapprove of, or do you think all jargons are used only to mystify and tell lies?

I'll repeat, if I may. Orwell did not say "Never use a big word." He said, "Never use a big word where a small, clear, simple one is available." (my paraphrase)

There are times when one has to reach for a more sophisticated, lengthy, esoteric kind of term. There is a measure of jargon that is involved in all specialized areas of study. And that's legit: one needs some recourse to technical terms when the discussion becomes exceedingly technical and deep. But that sort of measured use of concept-terms is not what I'm pointing to. It's the gratuitous use of jargon for no more sophisticated purpose than confusing the rubes and impressing the semi-informed...a thing widely practiced in the Humanities.

I can assure you, I'm able to play that game if I were to want to . I can lapse into jargon so dense and convoluted that the average rube is going to be thoroughly intimidated and lose all track of my meaning. But I think that doing that is contemptible and dishonest, if I have the means to speak simply and clearly about exactly the same matter, and not to lose any content thereby. How is clear thinking and openness to critique well-served by obfuscating terms? It's not.

A writer should be honest, clear and forthcoming...as often as the necessary subject matter allows.

Orwell agreed.

I wonder what sort of material you have been reading! My experience of creators is a lot more optimistic than yours. Nevertheless I have been taught how to look for signs of dishonesty or stupidity. These signs may include using big words when short words will do, but not necessarily so. People who want to lead the attitudes and opinions of modern listeners do so with more subtlety than you claim. I can think of the most inspiring speeches by politicians for better or for worse, from Shakespeare's Mark Antony , through Churchill, through Trump, and Hitler, speeches that were characterised by plain language spoken with spirit and expressive metaphors.

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder what sort of material you have been reading!

Academic literature, from the Humanities. The stuff you find in every one of their academic journals. Don't you read any of that? If you do, you know I'm telling you the truth.

I can think of the most inspiring speeches by politicians for better or for worse, from Shakespeare's Mark Antony , through Churchill, through Trump, and Hitler, speeches that were characterised by plain language spoken with spirit and expressive metaphors.

None of the above was a pure academic. None of them wrote in academic journals and academic books. None of them was patheticly scrabbling for cheap academic plaudits (like publication credits or invitations to conferences) or tenure.

And you're quite right: plain speech with powerful metaphors is the way to reach the masses. Orwell said so. History shows it. And today, nobody reads academic journals in the Humanities without being obligated to, by their profession. Such things are boring, turgid, ideologically bent, and horribly self-important, for the most part; and fluently-written articles are few and far between in them.

Again: just go and look. You'll see that Orwell was exactly right. You'll also see I'm speaking the truth.

[Belinda]

I will give you this, Immanuel Can: I myself prefer plain English, and I believe plain English is better than convoluted, or affected, or mystifying English.

Moreover there is at least one sort of jargon I positively dislike which is the language typical of what Americans call realtors and in the UK are called estate agents.
I also dislike and disapprove of bureaucratic jargon , or any other jargon which is used only to disempower the already powerless.

In my experience reputable expressive literature is honest , elegant, and often beautiful. If any expressive literature is is maleficent in intent , whether by lies or by mystifications , it is condemned by critics as bad literature.

This argument began with my request to use philosophers' jargon. For historical reasons philosophical jargon (and many other jargons) began among people of the more powerful social classes who could afford the leisure to learn posh linguistic forms. The earliest example I can think of offhand is England after the Norman conquest of 1066 when Norman French, and clerical Latin were languages of power and Anglo Saxon was relegated to disempowered yeomen and peasants.To this day English swear words are usually one syllable and Anglo Saxon.

I very much support plain English. Unfortunately philosophy is (like law, and medicine) historically an upper class pursuit and that is why many of philosophers' useful shorthand terms are Latinate or Greek instead of Anglo Saxon.

[Immanuel Can]

In my experience reputable expressive literature is honest , elegant, and often beautiful.

Really? Well, I wasn't taking about them, but you are a very trusting soul if you think being "expressive" means that nobody's going to "express" evil things...particularly since you mention Hitler (presumably Mein Kampf) as an examplar of the kind of literature you recognize as powerful.

This argument began with my request to use philosophers' jargon.

Orwell advises us to use technical terms where necessary, and otherwise, avoid unnecessary obscurantism. I agree. No jargon when you don't absolutely need it. None for mere effect, none to impress the naive, none to hide one's real meaning. Say it simply.

I very much support plain English. Unfortunately philosophy is (like law, and medicine) historically an upper class pursuit and that is why many of philosophers' useful shorthand terms are Latinate or Greek instead of Anglo Saxon.

No, that's not the reason. It's not at all the case that most complex ideas cannot be explained in the simplest available terms. The reason many academics resort to jargon when they could use plain language is that they want to impress the naive and the jargon-loving peers they have, to seem erudite when they're really just being conventional, or not to be held to the specifics of what they're talking about.

In other words, an actually intelligent person could surf to Phoenix on the waves of horse-manure surging out of academia today.