Trick of the Language?

Yes, inasmuch as that's the way it seems to many of us

Intuition doubts if everything could be returned to its state at some moment yesterday that today would be exactly the same though I'm not sure how any difference could apply to the issue of freewill. However I wonder if the antipody won't eventually be resolved by demonstrating it's merely a semantic matter

Yes, no, there's no such word

Thanks for answering

The question of how much of the problem comes down to semantics versus the real state of the universe (say) is the central one I wanted to pose really. It feels like it should be a mistake unique to human consciousness, yet my belief in determinism also seems to support it as correct in broader terms.

Just as an aside I want to say that I rather bungled the posting of this, among other things failing to tag it for the Language forum etc. Frustrating.

It seems to me that most philosophical questions these days -- and especially any that deal with what, for lack of a better word, we still call 'metaphysics' -- are about semantics rather than anything like ultimate reality.

BTW, I re-tagged the thread for you. (You can add tags after you've sumitted, you know)

Yes the validity of language in describing reality does seem to be a rather leaky problem, especially in philosophy.

And thank you very much for the tidying up of the tags -I tried to change them through the edit button which seemed to be a no go.

Med you seem to be saying you'e a determinist, which of course is okay. However I think most of us feel as if we have to assume freewill if for no other reason because determinism is so gloomy an outlook

In my whole life I did meet one other out-and-out determinist who admitted however in spite of that outlook he enjoyed watching it happen

Andy above evidently agrees with me about the semantic prop

Yes well, insofar as I actually understand determinism I believe the universe is deterministic. This would make me a determinist, however I admit to not being able to live my life in the full flight of the intellectual freedom such a position allows one, since I am a human with emotions which rule my actions above all.

I have never seen an argument which would convince me that free will is possible, and I accept determinism (which in a way is only the law of cause and effect; we are caused beings) even in human concerns no matter how gloomy it seems. I'm a pessimist as well so it kind of suits me

Neither have I.

You are confusing levels of description.

"Free Will" is a social and psychological concept which has essential significance in a network of human behaviorial concepts like "responsibility", "self", "culpability" etc. If you doubt this, consider the social result of removing "culpability" from the language !
"Determinism" is a mode of argument primarily supported by successful prediction of limited physical events. Philosophers having failed to give a clear definition of "causality" prompted Kant to conclude it was a perceptual a priori (i.e a wired in mode of thinking). Causality has no place in modern physics partially because the time dimension within which it seems to operate has been subsumed as an aspect of "space-time" and can no longer be considered to be an independent reference frame.

Thus the argument that physical events are deterministic and that they are a necessary substrate for cognitive events is flawed on at least three counts.
1. Determinism/causality, despite its limited success in predicting what we tautologically call "mechanistic behavior" is ultimately a cognitive concept.
2. Necessity does not imply sufficiency.
3. "Events" are observer defined by selection of the boundaries of the event window.

I'd say this observation supports my contention that the entire argument is merely a semantic issue

Yet meantime we're left with the determinist's insistence that all events are physical

I agree that most metaphysical arguments discussed in the abstract can be termed "merely semantic". However specific AI research, or defense arguments in court rooms often take determinism, rightly or wrongly, as axiomatic . The point is that what we call "semantics" is contextually anchored, or as Wittgenstein pointed out, metaphysical "problems" tend to be what happens "when language goes on holiday" (i.e used out of context or in nebulous generalizations).

Fres your argument far exceeds the capabilities of the Typical Blockhead (me). But I'm wondering whether you're merely rephrasing my contention that the apparent impasse between determinism and free will is merely a semantic issue

Forgive me Fres but this sentence can be interpreted in several if not many different ways so reducing your entire contention to everyday terms in short sentences suitable to the Average Clod (me) might be appreciated as well by others

I am qualifying the phrase "merely semantic" by pointing out that a non-contextual "impasse" is a straw man. Consider the following contexts.
1.Nobody (normally) discusses the choice of "shirt selection" (say) in terms of a free will/determinism dichotomy...the dichotomy has no semantic significance in this case.
2. On the other hand, consider a court room argument that X committed a crime because he suffered from an aberrant brain condition outside his control. In that case the dichotomy does have significance.

So the phrase "merely semantic" belies the fact that in context, decisions either way can have social consequences and that point devalues the import of "merely".

Don't know, suppose depends on what one means by "semantic," but some see the shirt selection in exactly the same terms as the jury trial

Somebody please help me out here

The point is, in those contexts where you think sanity/insanity is a meaningful semantic distinction equivalent to free will/determined, then the phrase "merely semantic" is inappropriate. Note too that some religions having "free will" as a core component would also give contextual substance to the dichotomy.

So I am saying that although the distinction is meaningless as a general all-embracing principle, thereby rendering the non-contextual determinism principle vacuous, in certain contexts the distinction between "free will" and "determinism" does have semantic significance (semantic=implying social consequences).

To me they don't seem equivalent. The latter represents not merely a difference but an outright contradiction

Attributing contextual substance to the dichotomy as as general all-embracing principle does indeed render the non-contextual determinism principle vacuous in certain contexts of immense semantic significance

Sorry Fres, just couldn't resist. To communicate with the Commonplace Muddler (me) you must employ more nearly everyday language

I think fresco would be satisfied if you merely took "merely" out of your initial response.

The irony is that dalehileman's posture as "a muddler" suggests that "clear language" is possible, but as Quine and others have pointed out this is never the case.

Qualifier:From my understanding of what fresco has written:

I don't think the intention was to equate (sanity/insanity) with (free will/determined) in general.
But, rather to compare them in the context of something like a court trial, when the decision one way or the other determines the outcome of the trial.
In a court (where intention matters) finding that someone is insane may exonerate the accused (or lessen the punishment). The logic being used in such a court is that, if someone is insane they therefore had no free will and thus were incapable of intending the act (or consequences of the act) in question.

So, getting it back to the OP:
Be careful of dismissive language regarding such questions of free will because people's lives may hang in the balance. dun dun dun
Also I think fresco has a special place in his heart for semantics.
When he sees the word "merely" proceeding it, his heart trembles from the abuse.

It is also ironic that if it were the case you might be able to demonstrate to everyone the nature of that irony.