예전에 윌리엄스가 쓴 라이팅 법칙들에 대한 포스팅을 한 적이 있습니다. 모든 챕터를 다 하진 않았지만, 그래도 꽤 많이 커버했다고 생각합니다 (나중에 나머지를 다 할 수도 있고요). 오늘은 여태까지 설명했던 법칙들에 기반해서 예전에 썼던 야코비 과제의 일부가 왜 안 좋은 에세이인지 설명해보겠습니다. 일단 이 에세이를 먼저 보시죠:
§2. Jacobi’s Alterative
In this section, I explain Jacobi’s alternative to Spinoza’s fatalism. In On Doctrines of Spinoza, Jacobi claims we have free will. There cannot be any argument for it, because it is immediately true. We all know we are free, and that is sufficient to say that we have free will. Therefore, he claims we need to reject Spinozism. Spinozism entails fatalism, but fatalism is wrong. Therefore, we modus tollens that Spinozism entails fatalism and say Spinozism is wrong. Spinoza rightly saw that fatalism follows from his system, but he couldn’t see that is the reason to reject his system. Precisely because we know that we have free will, Jacobi says, Spinozism fails.
Although Jacobi doesn’t argue for this in On the Doctrines of Spinoza, we can look at his preface to David Hume on Faith to reconstruct his argument. There, Jacobi argues we have two faculties within ourselves. First is faculty of understanding. This faculty accounts for any inferential processes like syllogism and premise-conclusion form. Every time we make arguments, we are employing our faculty of understanding. However, Jacobi says, faculty of understanding cannot be the only faculty we use when we make arguments. If the faculty of understanding is all we have, we will fall into an infinite regress. Consider the following argument:
P1 : Socrates is human.
P2 : All human beings are mortal
C : Socrates is mortal.
This argument includes a set of premises, P1 and P2. If only faculty we have is the faculty of understanding, then P1 and P2 are conclusions taken from separate arguments by employing the faculty of understanding. Then, we will have each argument that consists of a separate set of premises, which amount to P1 and P2. But the premises that constitute the argument will have to have further arguments. Then, we fall into an infinite regress. We need something other than faculty of understanding.
For Jacobi, faculty of reason resolves this issue by providing us with immediate facts. Those immediate facts are the building blocks for further arguments and conclusions. They are regress-stoppers. We must have known them in order to make arguments. Jacobi further goes on to say that through the faculty of reason, we immediately know that we have free will. It is not what one should argue for, because it is a premise that we can constitute arguments. If Jacobi is right, then we can immediately reject Spinoza’s fatalism. If we are making arguments that we don’t have free will, we can just put the premise that we have free will into our argument and derive contradictions. For example, if Spinoza argued for E1p33, we could just say:
P1 : Modes could not have been produced in no other way.
P2 : We have free will, that is, our wills could have been otherwise.
C : Modes could have been produced in other ways.
P2 serves as a motor for ad reductio, and this will take us to reject any fatalism conclusions. This is Jacobi’s alternative, that we know we have free will immediately. Since that is the starting point of our arguments, we can’t go against it. Therefore, Spinoza’s fatalism fails. In the next section, I will argue this is a viable option to Spinoza’s fatalism.
까지입니다. 일단 첫번째 단락부터 봅시다:
In this section, I explain Jacobi’s alternative to Spinoza’s fatalism. In On Doctrines of Spinoza, Jacobi claims we have free will. There cannot be any argument for it, because it is immediately true. We all know we are free, and that is sufficient to say that we have free will. Therefore, he claims we need to reject Spinozism. Spinozism entails fatalism, but fatalism is wrong. Therefore, we modus tollens that Spinozism entails fatalism and say Spinozism is wrong. Spinoza rightly saw that fatalism follows from his system, but he couldn’t see that is the reason to reject his system. Precisely because we know that we have free will, Jacobi says, Spinozism fails.
여기서 토픽 센텐스는 "Jacobi claims we have free will" 입니다. 하지만 예전에 말했듯이, 문장 끝에 새로운 정보를 넣어야합니다. 즉, 여기서 제가 새로 제안하는 것은 "we have free will"이 되는 것입니다. 그것이 이 단락의 토픽이겠죠. 하지만, 나머지 단락을 보시면 아시겠지만, 이 단락은 "Jacobi claims"에 포인트가 맞춰져있습니다. 즉, 저는 토픽 센텐스를 잘못 쓴 것입니다. 그렇다면 아마 첫 두 문장은 다음과 같이 써져야할 것입니다:
In On Doctrines of Spinoza, Jacobi objects to Spinoza's fatalism. His argument is this: we have free will, because we immediately know that we do so.
immediately know를 문장 끝에다가 두기는 힘들죠. know라는 단어는 목적어가 필요하고, 목적어는 동사 뒤에 오니깐요. 하지만 we know that we have free will이라고 말하는 순간 원래 했던 실수를 반복하게 됩니다. 이때 윌리엄스가 한 말은, pronoun가 같은 단어들로 뒤를 잇게 되면, 그 단어들에 무게가 덜해지기 때문에 뒤에 내용 (we have free will)이 토픽 센텐스가 되는 것을 막을 수 있습니다. 그렇기 때문에 "we do so"라고 쓰면서 we immediately know에 초점을 맞출 수 있습니다.
하지만 이렇게 되면 저는 "we immediately know" 라는 내용을 이미 설명했습니다. 하지만 다음 문장의 끝에서 "it is immediately true"라는 내용이 나왔기 때문에, 다음 문장은 의미없는 반복이 됩니다. 즉, 다음 문장을 빼든, "there can't be any arguments for it"을 문장 뒤로 보내면서 살려야합니다. 만일 살린다면, 다음과 같은 문장이 되겠죠:
This means that we can't argue for or against it. If we do so, we would get a mediated result and refute our immediate knowledge.
이 수정에서 또 주목할 만한 것은 주어의 통일입니다. 토픽 센텐스가 we로 픽스가 되는 순간, 뒤에 나오는 문장들은 최대한 we와 같거나 관련돼있어야합니다. 또한, nominalization은 최대한 피해야하고 동사 형태의 단어를 써야합니다. 어떤 물체가 어떤 행동을 하는지 설명하는 것이 한 행동을 설명하는 것보다 더 클리어하니깐요. 즉, argument를 argue로 바꿔야합니다. 하지만 다음 문장에서는 nominalization (know -> knowledge)을 썼습니다. 그 이유는 앞에서 이미 누가 무엇을 아는지 설명 돼어있기 때문에 knowledge를 써도 클리어하기 때문입니다.
중간점검을 해보자면:
In On Doctrines of Spinoza, Jacobi objects to Spinoza's fatalism. His argument is this: we have free will, because we immediately know that we do so. This means that we can't argue for or against it. If we do so, we would get a mediated result and refute our immediate knowledge.
원래 단락에서는 이 문장 후에 이 토픽에서 벗어나 어떻게 우리가 스피노자를 반박할 수 있는지로 넘어갑니다. 하지만, 이 단락을 그냥 넘어갈 수 없는 이유가 있습니다. immediately, know가 키워드고, 이 키워드들은 그 다음 문장들에 반복되거나 비슷한 단어들이 나와야하는데, 그렇지 않고 있습니다. 하지만 저는 이 키워드들을 반복할 방법을 찾지 못했기 때문에, 한 번 더 포인트를 반복을 해주고 넘어갑시다:
In On Doctrines of Spinoza, Jacobi objects to Spinoza's fatalism. His argument is this: we have free will, because we immediately know that we do so. This means that we can't argue for or against it. If we do so, we would get a mediated result and refute our immediate knowledge. Instead, we simply have to accept the fact that we have free will.
immediate과 동의어인 simply를 쓰면서 토픽 센텐스를 한 번도 강조했고, 이제 다음으로 넘어가면 되는데... 생각보다 하나하나 설명하면서 쓰니 굉장히 오래 걸리는군요. 언제가 될 진 모르겠지만, 다음에 이어서 써보도록 하겠습니다. 무기한이니 기다리진 말아주세요. 원래 단락과 비교할 수 있게 원래 단락을 다시 올리면서 마무리하겠습니다:
In this section, I explain Jacobi’s alternative to Spinoza’s fatalism. In On Doctrines of Spinoza, Jacobi claims we have free will. There cannot be any argument for it, because it is immediately true. We all know we are free, and that is sufficient to say that we have free will.