compatibilism

[Immanuel Can]

I made no mistake about FJ. I asked him if Compatiblism could be rationalized. He said he wasn't interested in whether or not it was rational, but only in the personal motivations people had for believing it. He didn't want to defend it, because he couldn't.

None of those things happened ...

Let's pretend that's true. Let's say instead that they're happening right now.

What is your rational defense of Compatibilism?

(Never mind. I know you don't have one. If you had, you'd have offered it long ago.)

[Flannel Jesus]

I made no mistake about FJ. I asked him if Compatiblism could be rationalized. He said he wasn't interested in whether or not it was rational, but only in the personal motivations people had for believing it. He didn't want to defend it, because he couldn't.

None of those things happened ...

Let's pretend that's true. Let's say instead that they're happening right now.

What is your rational defense of Compatibilism?

(Never mind. I know you don't have one. If you had, you'd have offered it long ago.)

You're too presumptuous. I don't have a "preferred defense", to be on defense assumes someone is on offense, so there's not some specific "preferred defense" that isn't in relation to any specific offense. It doesn't really make sense.

I'm not on defense.

I offered to talk to you about why I think what I think (multiple times), you blew it (multiple times), now you're demanding some preferred defense like a weirdo. Just get over it. Learn to have a normal conversation for next time someone offers to tell you why they think what they think. You'd really benefit from that.

[Immanuel Can]

None of those things happened ...

Let's pretend that's true. Let's say instead that they're happening right now.

What is your rational defense of Compatibilism?

(Never mind. I know you don't have one. If you had, you'd have offered it long ago.)

You're too presumptuous.

I presumed nothing. I asked for a rationale. You have none, apparently. That much, I can now presume, I would say.

[Flannel Jesus]

Let's pretend that's true. Let's say instead that they're happening right now.

What is your rational defense of Compatibilism?

(Never mind. I know you don't have one. If you had, you'd have offered it long ago.)

You're too presumptuous.

I presumed nothing. I asked for a rationale. You have none, apparently. That much, I can now presume, I would say.

You asked for a "rational defense" lmao. Defense against what? You don't just go up to some random person and say "what's your defense?", it doesn't even make goddamn sense. Maybe it would make sense if you had a specific thing, a specific criticism, and you were wondering how they respond to that, but that's not what you did, you don't have the clarity of thought to do that. You think you can just say "give me your best defense" and have that be meaningful in some way.

You're out of your mind. You've been consistently putting your foot in your mouth every time you talk to me. You have a lot to figure out. You know you can just talk to people right? Like not everything is a proof, not everything is a defense - sometimes people have ideas you don't agree with, and you can just talk to them about those ideas and why they think what they think, and be chill about it. It's not a fucking duel.

[Immanuel Can]

You're too presumptuous.

I presumed nothing. I asked for a rationale. You have none, apparently. That much, I can now presume, I would say.

You asked for a "rational defense" lmao.

Again, you have none.

I'm talking to an empty vessel, apparently. I shall, therefore, forgo the exercise.

[Flannel Jesus]

What's your defense?

[Immanuel Can]

What's your defense?

My defense is, "It seems you don't know anything." So there is no point in asking you.

[Age]

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

-----

Robinson Crusoe lives alone on an island. He claims the island as his "property". A shipwreck causes 30 more people to swim to the island. "You can't stay here. It's mine," shouts Robinson. Does he have a "right" to assert these "property rights" (which will cause the ship wrecked sailors to drown)? Wouldn't asserting his property rights conflict with the law of magnanimity, and with the rights to life and liberty of the sailors?

RC may have a claim on the island (he doesn't as I'll explain) but he has no claim on the sailors. He cannot morally demand they sacrifice themselves (their lives) becuz they've merely set foot on his island. His natural rights cannot trump theirs. They are co-equal. They are stymied as neither side has the moral ace card.

But then, he has no claim to the whole of the island to begin with.

How is property morally acquired? Thru fair and voluntary trade (not applicable here [RC is a castaway himself]), thru inheritance, or thru direct labor or labor thru proxy. Certainly, RC can justly expel the sailors from the hut he built or the garden he planted or the fishery where he laid his traps. He can justly deny the sailors access to his clothes, his tools, and his sundries. But unless he's mixed his labor with the whole of the island (cultivated every foot of it, put his mark on all the animals) he has no moral claim to all of it.

So, if what you say here is the case, then one can come to the island that "robinson crusoe" is on, offer a 'fair' trade, for the island, which "robinson crusoe" 'voluntary' accepts, and according to "henry quirk's logic", anyway, this island is now, 'currently', 'owned' by one person.

So now 'we' are back to what you are 'trying to' deflect from, which is; A shipwreck causes 30 more people to swim to the island. "You can't stay here. It's mine," shouts 'the owner'. Does that one have a "right" to assert these "property rights" (which will cause the ship wrecked sailors to drown)? Wouldn't asserting his property rights conflict with the law of magnanimity, and with the rights to life and liberty of the sailors?

[Flannel Jesus]

What's your defense?

My defense is, "It seems you don't know anything." So there is no point in asking you.

Nice defense you got there, good talk.

[Age]

B226CB39-697E-411C-9982-5DBBA7249D54.png

Now 'this one' is REALLY showing and proving just how Truly UNABLE it is to both:

Back up and support its own illogical, irrational, and/or nonsensical views, which it, laughingly, believes are true.

Refute and counter what I have said and pointed out here.

'This one' has CONTRADICTED "itself", while also showing and proving just how much of a HYPOCRITE it REALLY IS.

And, because it has no way of getting out of this now it resorts to what it has just done here.

LOL and this was 'the form' some took in a 'philosophy forum' of all places, in the days when this was being written.

[Age]

Sure, as long as you call it a form of determinism.

It's more of a form of free will, that's compatible with determinism. One can be a compatibilist and not be a determinist.

You have people who
1. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in free will (and not determinism)
2. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in determinism (and not free will)
3. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in neither
4. Think free will and determinism are compatible, and believe in both
5. Think free will and determinism are compatible, but believe in free will and not determinism

(and probably more options than that, but the majority of peoples positions are covered by that, apart from general agnosticism)

4 and 5 are compatibilism - you don't strictly have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist, you just have to think they're compatible.

Once more what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is 'these people', back in the very 'olden days' when this was being written 'believed' that they 'had to believe' things.

And, what they, still, had not yet recognized and noticed is that it was because of 'their beliefs' WHY there was so much DISTORTION and DISAGREEMENT.

LOL This whole topic, like just about absolutely every topic in this forum, if not all, can be solved, settled, and/or resolved almost instantly. For example,

When the words 'free will' refer to the ability to choose, only. The word 'determinism' refers to every thing that is happening and occurring NOW was because of 'past experiences', 'pre-existing conditions or circumstance', or 'pre-determined', and every thing that will happen and occur was 'determined' to happen and occur because of the experiences, conditions, or circumstances that are happening and occurring NOW. And, the word 'combatilism' refers to 'free will' and 'determinism' both existing together, THEN

The Fact that you human beings have the ability to choose AND the choices you make are made solely on your own individual 'past experiences', only, this just means, IRREFUTABLY, that 'free will' AND 'determinism' CO-EXIST, and thus are COMPATIBLE.

Now, as these people will PROVE True, this cannot be refuted. Therefore, is the, IRREFUTABLE, Truth of things here.

But, what these people here in this forum will ALSO PROVE True, irrefutably, is that they will continue to argue, fight, and bicker over this one of many absolutely Truly simple and easy things to solve, and re-solve, in Life.

And, what they will ALSO PROVE IRREFUTABLY True is that the MAIN REASON WHY they will continue to bicker, argue, fight, and even kill each other over is the pre-existing beliefs and assumptions within them, which they just to not want to let go off and get rid of.

The 'ones' that these people are FOOLING and DECEIVING here the MOST is "themselves", ONLY.

[Flannel Jesus]

Wow, I feel honoured that you would quote me and then write about me even though I'm not your target audience. Those sure are a lot of words. Shame nobody will read them. Peace.

[Alexiev]

I believe you interpreted a post where he was defining compatibilism with him justifying compatibilism or asserting that it was the case.

You "believe," do you?

Well, so do Compatibilists. But their belief is no more warranted than yours, it seems.

I made no mistake about FJ. I asked him if Compatiblism could be rationalized. He said he wasn't interested in whether or not it was rational, but only in the personal motivations people had for believing it. He didn't want to defend it, because he couldn't.

But if Compatiblism is irrational, then it doesn't matter how many people believe it -- in fact, the more that believe in it, the worse that is for us all. Irrational beliefs do not add up to good things for the human race.

Of course compatibilism can be justified. Suppose someone said, "Of my own free will, I went to the store yesterday." The sentence is coherent and meaningful. It means nobody forced the man to go to the store, but he decided to go and he went.

Now let's posit an omniscient God who can see the future as well as we can see the past. He would know whether we will make a trip to the store tomorrow. But he won't force us to do so, any more than the man who went yesterday was forced to make the trip. The 'freedom" of the act is not constrained by the knowledges. Just as it wasn't when speaking in the past tense.

[Age]

Sure, as long as you call it a form of determinism.

It's more of a form of free will, that's compatible with determinism. One can be a compatibilist and not be a determinist.

You have people who
1. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in free will (and not determinism)
2. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in determinism (and not free will)
3. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in neither
4. Think free will and determinism are compatible, and believe in both
5. Think free will and determinism are compatible, but believe in free will and not determinism

(and probably more options than that, but the majority of peoples positions are covered by that, apart from general agnosticism)

4 and 5 are compatibilism - you don't strictly have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist, you just have to think they're compatible.

Good, then at this point free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism mean whatever we want them to mean ie. they don't mean anything.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, you "atla" have CHOSEN those words to mean what you want them to mean.

And, the IRREFUTABLE PROOF of this is that you cannot get AGREEMENT, and ACCEPTANCE, of your personal CHOICE of definitions and meanings here.

[Age]

All rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people.

Yeah, we, you and me, went around on this sometime back. We don't agree with each other. I prefer our friendly conversation about Lewis to a rehash guaranteed to leave us both with bad feelings.

Philosophy is not my favorite form of literature, but I was trying to return to the topic (I remember our discussion, but had forgotten it was with you). I looked at Lewis's "Abolition of Man". At the end of the essay, Lewis lists eight illustrations of natural law (the Tao) collected from a variety of cultures. They are:

1) The law of general beneficence. Example: Do unto others
2) The law if special beneficence. "Natural affection is a thing right..."
3) Duties to parents, elders and ancestors. "Honor thy father and mother"
4) Duties to children and posterity. "Great reverence is owed to the child."
5) The law of justice. "Choose loss rather than shameful gains."
6) The law of good faith and veracity. "The foundation of justice is good faith."
7) The law of mercy. "I have given bread to the hungry."
The law of magnanimity. " Death is better than life with shame."

Correctly, property rights are not included as a form of natural law, although "thou shalt not steal" is listed as an example of the law of justice.

And, OBVIOUSLY, 'judicial law', which is, obviously, just made up by a very few select human beings had NOT WORKED. And, the very reason for this is because a lot of it is in complete and utter contradiction with the One and only NATURAL LORE.

And, the words, 'thou shalt not steal', can also be in reference to 'it is far better that you adult human beings do not steal the very air and water that all following generations of living animals, including "yourselves" and "your children", ACTUALLY NEED in order to keep living and surviving here, on earth.

And, by 'steal' what is meant is, 'Do not pollute', the very air and water that is actually NEEDED.

Or, in other words, 'Do not steal 'that', which is ACTUALLY NEEDED, in Life'.

That some SELFISH and GREEDY human beings, along 'the, evolutionary', way', in Life, just chose and decided to claim, and keep, some things like parts of earth, as 'their own', and then made up 'rules' where human beings can actually be humiliated, punished, and/or killed for just 'touching stuff', is all completely and utterly IRRELEVANT to the NATURAL ORDER and to what is NATURALLY Right, and Wrong, in Life.

And, that some human beings like the one here known as "henry quirk" has been FOOLED, TRICKED, and DECEIVED into BELIEVING that 'stuff' is 'owned', individually, by some of or, by you human beings is another example of just how simply and easily you human beings can be DECEIVED, in Life.

Once upon a time you human beings lived WITH the earth, and everything else. That was until some 'entitled ones' of you human beings decided, 'I WANT 'this or that' for "myself" ', and, as well as being so 'entitled' 'that way' 'those ones' also decided that they be, literally, 'en-titled' with some made up and self-given words like "kings", "queens", "princes", or "princesses" who BELIEVED, absolutely, they they were 'entitled' to 'own things', like, for example, 'toothpicks' or even 'moldy pieces of bread'. And, because they were SO VERY DELUDED and VERY DELUSIONAL about some 'man-made up right' of 'ownership' and of being 'entitled' 'to things', some also BELIEVED, absolutely, that they could TAKE 'another's life', literally, and/or by punishment and capture, with no questions asked.

I wanted to add my take on compatibilism, which I did in my last post.