Yes, it was. You wanted to use a different definition of “will” to insert in Rothbard’s argument. It doesn’t work like that.
I am fully aware of the differences. The problem is that you are trying to prove Rothbard is wrong by using a different definition of a word he uses. You can’t do that to prove someone is wrong.
Well, now I get to belittle you. Don’t you know that arguments cannot be false? Conclusions can be false, but not arguments. Learn the difference between validity, truth, and soundness.
Well there you go again with this false argument nonsense. Arguments are valid or invalid, not true or false. Perhaps you should learn the difference between truth, validity, and soundness.
So, you can see that you accusing me of not understanding these concepts is silly, as you have demonstrated that you don’t understand them yourself. We can all be ignorant together.
Definitions do not have truth values. Whether or not it is the case that someone uses a specific definition can have a truth value. In other words, it is true that Rothbard defined will as the control of the mind and body. But there is no truth value in and of itself regarding that specific definition of the will.
Let’s look at that quote again:
First, which definition is better is a matter of subjective values, not truth values. So you cannot say his premise is false because he uses a definition that you think is worse than yours.
Second, you have inaccurately stated my definition (and Rothbard’s). So, if you cannot accurately state his definition, how can I know if you think it is a false definition? And of course, as I stated above, definitions do not have truth values.
My, my…
Hm, something here is interesting. I know what it is. I said this:
And then you said this:
Are you saying that if you disagree with someone else’s definition, that their definition is false? Because I never claimed that because you proposed a different definition, that you did not disagree. Obviously you disagree on the definition. I specifically stated:
There is a difference.
Anyway, back to your quote:
Now that you understand that definitions have no truth value, I should think you would have gone back and corrected the previous sections of your post. I wonder why you didn’t.
Anyway, you cannot insert your own definition in order to prove a proposition false. That is not how it works. I will now demonstrate the problem with this again. I say again because you conviently ignored my example about the sun and the moon in your response.
Let’s suppose that I were to state the following “poem”.
Now, let’s suppose I say that if words end in the same sound, then they are said to rhyme. So, I now make the following claim: See and pee rhyme, and do and you rhyme.
Now, let’s suppose arguendo that you disagree with my definition of rhyme. You think that it is not a true definition (or is that good definition? I can’t tell if you think definitions have truth values or are subjectively valued). You think that a better definition of rhyme would be words that have the same amount of letters.
So, using this new definition, you then say that see and pee rhyme, but the words do and poo do not rhyme. Then you say,“Aha! You are wrong, gotlucky!” Only some of those words you claimed to rhyme actually rhyme.
But you see, the thing is, you have not disproved anything. You have only shown that if you use a different definition, that different conclusions can be drawn.
We can now look at the syllogism that you provided as well:
Now, I don’t think you have a true conclusion (note how I don’t say that you have a false argument? You might want to study up on the differences between truth, validity, and soundness). So, in order to prove you wrong, I am going to substitute a better definition of the word blue (or maybe I should say a true definition? After all, it might be the case that you actually think definitions have truth values).
I suggest that the true (or is it better?) definition of the word blue is colorful. Let’s take a look at your syllogism again:
Aha! So you see, if I just redefine the word blue, we can solve your syllogism and make it a sound argument! Tada!
Now, having said all this about definitions, I want to show you an example of when it might be useful to insert definitions. Let’s take the word murder. Now, the definition of murder that I typically use is unjustified homicide. There may or may not be anything wrong with that, but it will do for our purposes. Now, let’s suppose that there is some extreme pacifist, and he defines murder as homicide. That’s it. That’s all. He makes no distinctions in the kind of homicide.
Now, let’s look at the implications. Using this definition of murder would mean that we would be calling any death of a human in self-defense a murder. I do not like that. It does not fit my conception of murder. So, anyone who believes that the word murder should not allow for that will reject that definition of murder.
But here’s the thing: it’s still not a false definition. We can merely show that it is a definition we don’t like subjectively. That is the purpose of inserting definitions. It demonstrates that we would be using words in a way that we would not like to. But it does not make these definitions false.
You can dislike Rothbard’s definition of will all you want. But if you are going to critique his argument, you must use his definition. His definition of will is integral to his argument. Changing the definition means you are no longer talking about Rothbard’s argument.
If you want to show that Rothbard’s argument leads to conclusions that conflict with the NAP, leave his definition of the will alone. I can’t believe I had to write all of this, but you were jumping down my throat on the issue. You left me no choice.