@ogden,
ogden wrote:First, I was trying to say that fight or flight IS a first order response, so we agree there.
Second, I used "causality of response" trying to say that a fear response could be caused by stimuli that come to us on a second order thought level, a level of fear that did NOT threaten death but still ilicit the fear response.
Third, If I understand correctly, your consideration in this thread is not a tautology because it is not premis? I'm new to philosophy, so 'm trying to better understand thees concepts like, tautology. Thanks for your understanding:).
A tautology is a truth by definition like "All brothers (biological) are male" since that really just come down to, "All male siblings (def. of brother) are male. And that is just a verbal truth. Tautologies are true, but only because they are true by the meaning of the words, and not because it is what happens in the world which makes them true. On the other hand, if someone says, for instance, that all brothers are loyal, that if it were true, would not be merely a verbal truth, a definitional truth, but would be true because all brothers are (in fact) loyal. And, in order to discover whether that was true, we would have to do some investigation into the world, and it would not be enough just to know the meaning of the word, "brother". All brothers are, by definition, males. But it isn't true by definition that all brothers are loyal.
The importance of the difference between tautologies, which are definitionally true, and non-tautologies which, if true, are not definitionally true, is that sometimes, in philosophy, what are really tautologies, are really passed off as non-tautologies, so that the attempt is to have the truth of a tautology, while pretending the statement is not a tautology. If, for instance, I tell you that all rabbits eat lettuce, and if I place lettuce in front of a rabbit, but the rabbit refuses it, I may not admit that my statement that all rabbits eat lettuce is false despite the rabbit that refuses the lettuce. I may simply tell you that the animal can't be a rabbit, because it refuses the lettuce. If I do that, then I am
defining being a rabbit in terms of eating lettuce, and then my statement that all rabbits eat lettuce, although it appears to be a non-tautology, has been made into a tautology by the way I have defined the word, "rabbit". The original statement that all rabbits eat lettuce was not a tautology. But if I now tell you that it is true that all rabbits eat lettuce because when a rabbit refuses the lettuce I just define it as a non-rabbit, I am trying to pass off a tautology as a non-tautology and trying to make you believe that the original statement is true because the tautologous statement which looks like it, is true. It is just "bait and switch".
Now, consider the original proposition, "Everybody (or all actions) is selfish" (or "everybody is
really selfish" the "really" is a tip off that there is going to be some verbal fancy-footwork). Suppose I point out that a man who sacrifices his life to save his comrades isn't selfish. And suppose that the reply is that such a person is "really" selfish because he is doing what he "wills", and if anyone does what he wills, that is selfish. Now, notice how the term "selfish" has been redefined so that whatever anyone does voluntarily becomes a selfish action. It is now a tautology that all actions are selfish since "selfish action" has just been redefined as a voluntary action, and so, of course, All voluntary actions are (guess what) voluntary actions. Big deal! But, the original "all actions (or people) are selfish" which was supposed to be a non-tautology, is said to be proved true, because it has been transformed into a tautology, and, of course, it is the
tautology, and not the original statement, which has been proved true.
I expect that those who claim that all fear is fear of death will do the same kind of thing. Define all fear in such a way as it turns out to be fear of death. Of course, that is a pointless semantic procedure. And hypocritical on the part of those who claim to disdain "semantics".