Does this pleonistic wording only result in the supposed conclusion of there not being a non-free will?
-
TijgerlelieWijnhard
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:43 pm
- Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Contact:
Does this pleonistic wording only result in the supposed conclusion of there not being a non-free will?
“Will is free-will but it is not only free [...] ‘free-will’ is a pleonastic term since there is no such thing as a non-free will.” Agency and Freedom ch. The Twilight Zones of Free Will by Aurel Kolnai
-
EchoesOfTheHorizon
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am
Re: Does this pleonistic wording only result in the supposed conclusion of there not being a non-free will?
What?
Okay, you can in English declare something by it's absence, and then assert a quality of it's opposite.
You can say in a gun battle on the streets, to someone looking around "Is It Clear?" Which is a positive way of asserting a lacking of enemy troops (so not a pleonastic term) or invert it "Are We Still Held Up?" which gives a further indication over the idea "Is It Clear" that the intention is that we will push through the area that the question earlier, "Is It Clear" refers to. You can presume from "Is It Clear" the intention is the same, but it isn't something one should always presume. They may be asking for quite different reasons. It is that extra addition of quality that reveals a interpretive step that opens up the possibilities to invert it meaningfully. Also indicates one's leadership style, if you are authoritarian or allowing for others to make decisions (decisions that can backfire).
A non-free will can refer in circumstances where freedom of action is devolved into that of others, such as above, or it can be with options being increasingly yanked, such as a old man realizing one day he can no longer realistically become president of the US someday. You can do a lot of things, but less and less each day, and this awareness is nameably, and you can cause this awareness to effect how you approach other things in life, thus giving it a limited effect as a non-substance on the greater universe of action-potentials and very real, conceprete things.
But slapping that many negatives in a sentence is confusing usually (not always) due to the so called double negative rule in English. It isn't the most solid of rules in English, but because many hold to it, doesn't usually come off as easy to read it quickly. So I had to reread it like, three times.
Okay, you can in English declare something by it's absence, and then assert a quality of it's opposite.
You can say in a gun battle on the streets, to someone looking around "Is It Clear?" Which is a positive way of asserting a lacking of enemy troops (so not a pleonastic term) or invert it "Are We Still Held Up?" which gives a further indication over the idea "Is It Clear" that the intention is that we will push through the area that the question earlier, "Is It Clear" refers to. You can presume from "Is It Clear" the intention is the same, but it isn't something one should always presume. They may be asking for quite different reasons. It is that extra addition of quality that reveals a interpretive step that opens up the possibilities to invert it meaningfully. Also indicates one's leadership style, if you are authoritarian or allowing for others to make decisions (decisions that can backfire).
A non-free will can refer in circumstances where freedom of action is devolved into that of others, such as above, or it can be with options being increasingly yanked, such as a old man realizing one day he can no longer realistically become president of the US someday. You can do a lot of things, but less and less each day, and this awareness is nameably, and you can cause this awareness to effect how you approach other things in life, thus giving it a limited effect as a non-substance on the greater universe of action-potentials and very real, conceprete things.
But slapping that many negatives in a sentence is confusing usually (not always) due to the so called double negative rule in English. It isn't the most solid of rules in English, but because many hold to it, doesn't usually come off as easy to read it quickly. So I had to reread it like, three times.