compatibilism

[iambiguous]

Well, in that case -- click -- your understanding of having "done it" is very different from mine.

Your understanding of "done it" is : an argument that all reasonable men and women are obligated to accept.
(And I'm being generous by leaving out the word 'optimal'.)

My understand of "done it" is : a reasonable argument or description.

Right.

And in regard to connecting the dots existentiaslly between objective morality, religion and free will, scientists, philosophers and theologians have long, long, long ago established what it is entirely reasonable to believe and to describe.

On the other hand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Again, unless, of course, someone here can link me to a philosophical or scientific or theological argument that resolves all of that. Going back to where the human condition fits into the existence of existence itself.

All you want is a complete and certain answer to everything.

Talk about unrealistic expectations.

Indeed, that's my point. After all, how realistic is it to suppose that any of us have a complete and certain understanding of morality, God and the human brain?

Well, other than the FFOs among us.

[phyllo]

Indeed, that's my point. After all, how realistic is it to suppose that any of us have a complete and certain understanding of morality, God and the human brain?

You ask for answers.

If someone responds, then either they are arrogant objectivists or the response is not complete and certain enough for you. Or both.

[Flannel Jesus]

Indeed, that's my point. After all, how realistic is it to suppose that any of us have a complete and certain understanding of morality, God and the human brain?

You ask for answers.

If someone responds, then either they are arrogant objectivists or the response is not complete and certain enough for you. Or both.

Or their response is one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[edit] I guess that's covered in "objectivists".

In any case, there's no way to satisfy him, you've understood correctly.

[iambiguous]

In neither case, however, does causal responsibility establish or entail moral responsibility.

There is no difference between "responsibility" and "moral responsibility".

That's, uh, ridiculous? Not everything we are responsible for doing will be judged by others as either moral or immoral. In fact, most of what we do from day to day is not.

As so if clouds aren’t responsible for the typhoons they visit upon people in a morally relevant sense, then why and how are people ever morally responsible for the behaviour they direct towards other people?

If putting clouds in prison would prevent typhoons, then we would do it.

We already do similar things:

Cliffs are covered in wire mesh to prevent rock falls.

Snow is blasted by cannons to prevent accumulation and subsequent avalanches.

Water is constrained in various ways (dams, breakwaters, levees, etc) to prevent destructive events.

Right, and that definitely proves that we have free will?

[phyllo]

That's, uh, ridiculous? Not everything we are responsible for doing will be judged by others as either moral or immoral. In fact, most of what we do from day to day is not.

It will be judged right or wrong. Which is what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean.

Or they won't care. Which is also an option in morality - moral, immoral, indifferent.

[phyllo]

Right, and that definitely proves that we have free will?

Has he read a single thing that I have written???

How the hell can he come back with that reply???

[iambiguous]

Indeed, that's my point. After all, how realistic is it to suppose that any of us have a complete and certain understanding of morality, God and the human brain?

You ask for answers.

If someone responds, then either they are arrogant objectivists or the response is not complete and certain enough for you. Or both.

No -- click -- I make a distinction here between objective answers available to us pertaining to the either/or world and subjective personal opinions that we believe "in our heads" are the answers pertaining to morality, religion and the Big Questions.

Then the part where you explain to me how, in regard to things like abortion and Communism, you connect the dots between morality and God and autonomy "in your head".

[Iwannaplato]

The reason that will never happen is because it's beside the point. Iambiguous is just miscommunicating what he's actually trying to say, and if he knew how to communicate it clearly, none of this would be a problem.

That's my main interpretation, which I described in the post I wrote before that one.

What he's actually trying to say, I think -- this is the most charitable interpretation, a steelman if you will -- is that, if we have Mary in a determined universe, and we have a very very similar Mary in a "free will" universe - which I will assume to mean Libertarian free will at this point, because he seems to be putting this "free will" universe as being mutually exclusive with determinism - then what Iambiguous is saying is, if both versions of Mary have an abortion, it makes sense to hold the Libertarian Free Will version of Mary "responsible" but not the determinism one, because the libertarian free will version of Mary *could have done otherwise* but the determinism one couldn't.

THAT'S what he's pending so much breath failing at saying, as far as I can tell.

That's similar to my interpretation, though I think it's (his pattern) a bit more convoluted. But, further, I think he gets some secondary gain out of the seeming attack on determinism.

[iambiguous]

Indeed, that's my point. After all, how realistic is it to suppose that any of us have a complete and certain understanding of morality, God and the human brain?

You ask for answers.

If someone responds, then either they are arrogant objectivists or the response is not complete and certain enough for you. Or both.

Or their response is one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[edit] I guess that's covered in "objectivists".

In any case, there's no way to satisfy him, you've understood correctly.

Actually, my point is that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists in those links, the only way to satisfy them is by entirely agreeing with them. By becoming "one of us".

Whereas, over and again, I acknowledge that my own frame of mind here is no less derived existentially from dasein...from the life that I lived.

Then in noting that, to the best of my knowledge, none of us here is privy to the whole truth in regard to this...

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

[iambiguous]

That's, uh, ridiculous? Not everything we are responsible for doing will be judged by others as either moral or immoral. In fact, most of what we do from day to day is not.

It will be judged right or wrong. Which is what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean.

Or they won't care. Which is also an option in morality - moral, immoral, indifferent.

Again, if, in your head, you don't make the distinction here that I do, fine. After all, in your head, free will and determinism are "for all practical purposes" interchangeable as well.

Ridiculous to me but not to you.

And not to...God?

[iambiguous]

Right, and that definitely proves that we have free will?

Has he read a single thing that I have written???

How the hell can he come back with that reply???

Uh, I was never able not to?

[phyllo]

That's, uh, ridiculous? Not everything we are responsible for doing will be judged by others as either moral or immoral. In fact, most of what we do from day to day is not.

It will be judged right or wrong. Which is what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean.

Or they won't care. Which is also an option in morality - moral, immoral, indifferent.

Again, if, in your head, you don't make the distinction here that I do, fine. After all, in your head, free will and determinism are "for all practical purposes" interchangeable as well.

Ridiculous to me but not to you.

And not to...God?

Got it. You certainly showed us the error in my reasoning.

Your entire argument is : "It's ridiculous."

[iambiguous]

It will be judged right or wrong. Which is what 'moral' and 'immoral' mean.

Or they won't care. Which is also an option in morality - moral, immoral, indifferent.

Again, if, in your head, you don't make the distinction here that I do, fine. After all, in your head, free will and determinism are "for all practical purposes" interchangeable as well.

Ridiculous to me but not to you.

And not to...God?

Got it. You certainly showed us the error in my reasoning.

Your entire argument is : "It's ridiculous."

No, my entire argument -- click -- is that, to me, here and now, your arguments seem ridiculous. And that is because in regard to things like morality and religion and determinism, my own subjective assessments are no less rooted existentially in dasein.

Just as, in my view, yours are.

Only for the moral and political and religious and metaphysical objectivists among us, the whole point of believing what they do revolves in turn around the "psychology of objectivism". It's not what they believe about these things, but that in believing what they do it allows them to anchor their Self to one or another comforting and consoling font. God or No God.

And, again, given my own "win/win" frame of mind, it's not altogether out of the question that one of them might actually succeed in convincing me that their own anchor is the real deal.

Unless, of course, I am successful in bringing them over to my own set of fractured and fragmented assumptions.

[Iwannaplato]

Actually, my point is that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists in those links, the only way to satisfy them is by entirely agreeing with them. By becoming "one of us".

That seems like a trait you share with them. You don't seem satisfied in the least when people aren't fractured and fragmented or can't agree that we can't know X, for example. If people stop interacting with you, you claim that you drove into feelings that you have faced but they can't yet. (iow you almost made them one of you, but they couldn't handle it). Those are the only times you express anything close to satisfaction.

What is it that satisfies you?

[Flannel Jesus]

You ask for answers.

If someone responds, then either they are arrogant objectivists or the response is not complete and certain enough for you. Or both.

Or their response is one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[edit] I guess that's covered in "objectivists".

In any case, there's no way to satisfy him, you've understood correctly.

Actually, my point is that in regard to the moral, political and religious objectivists in those links, the only way to satisfy them is by entirely agreeing with them. By becoming "one of us".

Who cares though? Why is that your point? What's the point of that point? What's the relevance of it here, or anywhere? It seems entirely irrelevant to me to say any of that.

The point of a conversation between You and Phyllo about compatibilism or moral responsiblity or whatever isn't for Phyllo to convince every religious person or political person or follow of every school of philosophy about something, it's for him and you to work towards at least somethign closer to a mutual understanding. That's it - You, and Him - not every religion, political ideology, or school of philosophy. Just you and him.

So why bring those up? Is it just to distract Phyllo from saying something you might actually find meaningful?