= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Theists are wrong; is theism? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (533)
This kind of argument just seems to be bad philosophy, involving too many unclear words without unpacking them. Specifically, going through your comment: "moves", "external", "the very sense", "property", "freely caused", "prior thing". Since the situation in question doesn't seem to involve anything that's too hard to describe, most of the trouble seems to originate from unclear terminology, and could be avoided by discarding the more confused ideas and describing in more detail the more useful ones.
Any help would be much appreciated. I would never, ever claim to be a good philosopher.
Just become one, and claim away!
The article you link to makes a fine point about humility, but it doesn't tell me anything about how to become a good philosopher. Do you think you could point me in the direction of becoming a good philosopher? Or to someone who can?
It's important, I think, not to try to over-explain terminology. For example, all I mean by 'moves' is some relation that holds (by Will's premises) between God and a free action indirectly, and ourselves and a free action directly. Further specifying the meaning of this term would be distracting.
I think if you can make a specific case for the claim that some disagreement or argument is turning on an ambiguity, then we should stop and look over our language. Otherwise, I don't think it's generally productive to worry about terminology. We should rather focus on being understood, and I've got no reason to think Will doesn't understand me (and I don't think I misunderstand him).