Re: Words and their ambiguity
I think you'd agree that there's something to be said for allowing room for interpretation in various situations; perhaps when precicion in a situation is less important than brevity but when hackles begin to rise or beforehand, all paries must check themselves and acknowledge the debate not as opposing forces but as agents intent on reaching the common cause of truth. This is where clarity becomes all important and words must be defined or replaced for terms such as those commonly used in philosophical debate.
Re: Celestial bodies.
'Logic is the gravity of truth.' - me
There is of course always going to be the possibility of possibilities but surely no unfounded possibility should be considered more likely than any other unfounded possibility? Actually, I think I disagree with myself there; if a possibility sounds feasible it's more likely than one that sounds absurd.
Re: Free Will
On the contrary, I find it impossible to imagine how we possibly could have it. I mean, I know it is kind of intuitive but this is because we're doing precicely what our minds are telling us too! It's difficult to come up with a metaphor to express the non-existence of something. Our brains are full of neurons, that echo eachother. It's not so difficult then to consider our conciousness as an echo of subconcious messages (I think there are three types - sensory, and um ...) relevant to the immediate (even if what is happening in the immediate is reflecting).
People should write their own marrital contracts because people are individual, with individual needs and any relationship between two or more individuals is as individual as those involved. That's not to say a contract would need to be as complex of course. It may be that they want no rights other than the legal default.
Ha! Well perhaps a country so against Communism shouldn't have put itself in the pocket of China (though that is Communist only in name (but then what country ever has been truly Communist?)).
Wall St is no less insidious ...insidious? Brazenly dictatorial I mean. Capitalism is just 'the devil you know'.
Re: Free Will (again)
It's no wonder the powers that be aren't so keen to make the fallacy of free will known (or to let atheism run loose). How else can they justify their wealth? Not believing in free will doesn't nullify the effects of incentives of course. Perhaps Capitalism could work if people weren't so swamped in the egotism that can only come with belief in free will.