compatibilism

[henry quirk]

You could still pepper us with short powerful bursts of reasoning. It shouldn't take too much time and effort.

You underestimate the depths of of my indifference.

In your case, what changed when humans evolved from animals?

Ensoulment.

What are humans doing which is different from chimps?

In the context of the thread and discussion: chimpanzees do what they always have...

Eat, sleep, screw, and war.

Man does much the same 'cept when he -- and only he -- chooses to do otherwise.

[henry quirk]

Thanks for this. I read thru the wider conversation, generously thinkin' mebbe FJ's complaint had substance.

It doesn't. He's just a hair-splitter.

[phyllo]

You underestimate the depths of of my indifference.

Why be here at all?

In your case, what changed when humans evolved from animals?

Ensoulment.

Humans somehow got a soul when they evolved from animals. That's weird.

What are humans doing which is different from chimps?

In the context of the thread and discussion: chimpanzees do what they always have...

Eat, sleep, screw, and war.

Man does much the same 'cept when he -- and only he -- chooses to do otherwise.

Except he doesn't choose to do otherwise.

[phyllo]

Thanks for this. I read thru the wider conversation, generously thinkin' mebbe FJ's complaint had substance.

It doesn't. He's just a hair-splitter.

Well, that was easy to dismiss.

[Immanuel Can]

I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the aim in any “Compatibilism” is to show that the two “compatible” quantities are determination and free will.

Now you've got it right. Leave the term "libertarian" out and it straightens up.

Not even close, I’d say. But I’m open to hearing a new explanation.

So let me ask you, “What two or more things do you think are ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism?”

[henry quirk]

Why be here at all?

Cuz I choose to be.

Humans somehow got a soul when they evolved from animals. That's weird.

As a deist, it makes sense to me.

Except he doesn't choose to do otherwise.

Sure he does. Every time two decide to talk, when both sides are certain they have good reason to war, they've chosen otherwise. When a couple pledge themselves to one another, forsaking all others (despite temptation), they've chosen otherwise. When one recognizes the other as having natural rights, instead of slaving him, he's chosen otherwise.

[henry quirk]

Well, that was easy to dismiss.

Absolutely.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don’t think it’s unfair to say that the aim in any “Compatibilism” is to show that the two “compatible” quantities are determination and free will.

Now you've got it right. Leave the term "libertarian" out and it straightens up.

Not even close, I’d say. But I’m open to hearing a new explanation.

So let me ask you, “What two or more things do you think are ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism?”

You already said it yourself. Free will and determinism. Libertarian free will is the opposite - it's the specific belief in a type of free will that's explicitly incompatible with determinism.

When you said compatibilism is compatibility between libertarian free will and determinism, it was merely the word "libertarian" you should have left out.

[phyllo]

As a deist, it makes sense to me.

How so?

If the deist god created by evolution, then the sudden jump from no soul to soul is strange.

It would only "make sense" if the deist god created humans directly without evolution.

Sure he does. Every time two decide to talk, when both sides are certain they have good reason to war, they've chosen otherwise. When a couple pledge themselves to one another, forsaking all others (despite temptation), they've chosen otherwise. When one recognizes the other as having natural rights, instead of slaving him, he's chosen otherwise.

But animals often don't fight and they peacefully settle their disputes.

So I don't see anything particularly special or praiseworthy in humans.

[Immanuel Can]

Now you've got it right. Leave the term "libertarian" out and it straightens up.

Not even close, I’d say. But I’m open to hearing a new explanation.

So let me ask you, “What two or more things do you think are ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism?”

You already said it yourself. Free will and determinism. Libertarian free will is the opposite - it's the specific belief in a type of free will that's explicitly incompatible with determinism.

What content are you assuming is being conveyed by the word “libertarian” that is not conveyed by “free will”?

It doesn’t make sense to say that Determinism is compatible with ANY kind of “free” will at all. There’s nothing “free” about a “will” that is so predetermined that it expresses no possibility of a person choosing anything.

Forgive my temerity, but it seems to me that your argument thus far is this:

A) Libertarian free will is incompatible with Determinism.
B) Therefore, Determinism is compatible with free will.

That’s so obviously wrong that I must be mistaking your intention, I must suppose. So I’ll just ask for your clarification, instead.

[Flannel Jesus]

Not even close, I’d say. But I’m open to hearing a new explanation.

So let me ask you, “What two or more things do you think are ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism?”

You already said it yourself. Free will and determinism. Libertarian free will is the opposite - it's the specific belief in a type of free will that's explicitly incompatible with determinism.

What content are you assuming is being conveyed by the word “libertarian” that is not conveyed by “free will”?

Just the basic definition.

In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position[2][3] which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta ... taphysics)

If there's was no extra content, there'd be no point in saying libertarian, would there? An extra 5 syllables that conveys absolutely no meaning?

[Immanuel Can]

You already said it yourself. Free will and determinism. Libertarian free will is the opposite - it's the specific belief in a type of free will that's explicitly incompatible with determinism.

What content are you assuming is being conveyed by the word “libertarian” that is not conveyed by “free will”?

Just the basic definition.

In particular, libertarianism is an incompatibilist position[2][3] which argues that free will is logically incompatible with a deterministic universe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberta ... taphysics)

If there's was no extra content, there'd be no point in saying libertarian, would there? An extra 5 syllables that conveys absolutely no meaning?

It would be redundant. And I agree that libertarian free will is an incompatibilist view: but so is Determinism. I’m still waiting to see what two things are “compatible” within Compatibilism, because it can brook no kind of “freedom” at all, I would say.

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't really tell if you're trying to understand what compatibilism means, or if you're trying to debate if it's true or reasonable. It seems, up to now, like you haven't fully grasped what it means - but certain things you say in your posts make it seem like you're interested in debating if it's reasonable.

We gotta get a handle on the scope of the conversation.

Do you understand yet that compatibilism does not mean compatibility between LIBERTARIAN free will, and determinism?

[Immanuel Can]

I can't really tell if you're trying to understand what compatibilism means, or if you're trying to debate if it's true or reasonable.

The second. And so far, all I can see is that you’re trying to define Compatibilism into coherence, as if just “knowing what it means” would make it plausible, reasonable or true. And that just doesn’t work: I can define “unicorn,” but it won’t make one exist, or become a reasonable belief.

Do you understand yet that compatibilism does not mean compatibility between LIBERTARIAN free will, and determinism?

I’ve said “yes,” but I also see that it’s incompatible with ANY reasonable conception of free will, whether we label it “libertarian” or not.

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't really tell if you're trying to understand what compatibilism means, or if you're trying to debate if it's true or reasonable.

The second. And so far, all I can see is that you’re trying to define Compatibilism into coherence, as if just “knowing what it means” would make it plausible, reasonable or true. And that just doesn’t work

Nope, just trying to clarify things you got subtly wrong, like saying it's about compatibility with libertarian free will. I think part of the friction here is, you're assuming for some reason that I'm trying to prove it to you, when I haven't explicitly expressed an interest in trying to do that.

You're having a debate about if it's reasonable, but I've been clarifying the meaning of terms.