compatibilism

[Age]

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Even the ancient Greeks had different ideas about free-will.

So no, it's not the only traditional meaning of free-will.

Finally.

[Age]

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Even the ancient Greeks had different ideas about free-will.

So no, it's not the only traditional meaning of free-will.

True. I think it's weird how dogmatic people are that free will can only and has only ever meant libertarian free will, history just does not bear that out.

Not to mention the fact that libertarian free will isn't one definition, it's a class of definitions that includes many.

Finally.

[Atla]

Note to others:

For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.

And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.

Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.

But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.

You sure Mary wasn't pregnant with your child, maybe that's why you're so obsessed?

That I can still reduce the Atla's here to posting dreck like this has to count for something, right?

Yes the fact that you're the common denominator in exchanges ending in dreck, does allow us to draw some conclusions.

[Age]

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Even the ancient Greeks had different ideas about free-will.

So no, it's not the only traditional meaning of free-will.

The Greek one went out of use.

But, 'now', back to the start.

So, some times this one wants to 'talk about' and 'rely on' the so-called and alleged 'original meaning' of the 'free will' words, but 'now' even the 'traditional meaning' is not worthy of being talked about, as it, laughingly, 'went out of use'.

Once again, for the VERY SLOW OF LEARNING here, WHEN, and IF, all of you in the discussion, ever, come together, peacefully, find out what 'it' is, exactly, that you, really, want to discuss, while you work out what the, actual, meanings, or definitions, are going to be, exactly, within the discussion that you, really and seriously, do want to have, then, and ONLY THEN, you can, and actually will, move along, and forward, here.

Until then you posters here will just keep doing what you adult human beings have, more or less, just been doing for the last few or so thousand years, hitherto when this is being written. That is; just keep disputing, and bickering and fighting over, things, and all because you have not even evolved enough to have gained 'an understanding' of 'understanding', itself.

you people here have a, literal, 'miscommunication', and, literally, because of 'misunderstanding', itself.

[Age]

The Greek one went out of use.

Then what does "traditional" mean?

GREAT clarifying question.

Let 'us' now hope a GREAT, or any, clarifying answer is provided.

[iambiguous]

This was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.

Note to others:

For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.

And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.

Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.

But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.

Anyway, even though we live in an ultimately deterministic world, this is basically irrelevant at the everyday human world level. Where we look at choices from the psychological perspective, and look at life circumstances etc. I assume Mary was like the average person so psychologically she could make choices just fine, in that everyday sense she had enough free will when she chose to abort the baby, duh.

A psychological perspective? Okay, note for us how human psychology is somehow exempt from the laws of matter.

What, there's a homunculus inside our brains able to make that distinction for us: "do this and it's free will, do that and it's not?"

Then all those "choices" we make in our dreams. We wake up time and again and remind ourselves "whew, it was only a dream!" Yet while in the dream itself, it's actually like we aren't dreaming at all. Were convinced "in the dream" that we really are choosing our behaviors autonomously because, as in the waking world, this is -- psychologically? -- what we think and feel.

Instead, it's a "reality" manufactured by the brain. Based on the cues we give it in the course of actually living our lives. And in such a way that some convince themselves the waking brain is just "somehow" different from the sleeping brain.

And, sure, maybe it is. Though maybe it's not.

Or are my dreams the only ones that unfold like that.

Then this thing about choices. If we witness someone making a choice, what, that makes free will the real deal?

Yes, again, that may well be the objective truth. So, by all means, link me to the best arguments out there from the philosophical and scientific communities that most effectively demonstrate this. It's just that, by and large, from my frame of mind -- click -- philosophers are far more likely to "demonstrate" it in a world of words.

[Age]

The Greek one went out of use.

Then what does "traditional" mean?

It means that this is what "free will" meant for centuries to most people, whether you two miserable fucks like it or not.

WHY 'centuries'?

And, 'centuries' is not a very long time, relative to the 'thousands of years' that this most SIMPLEST issue has been of topic, and discussion, for.

LOL If only you human beings KNEW just how Truly SILLY you LOOK.

Discussing things for thousands upon thousands of years, and, still, here you are having not progressed nor moved forward in absolutely any way at all.

And, laughingly, this was on ONE of MANY, MANY other 'discussions', which you, literally, could not even begin, logically, let alone end, nor logically resolve.

Once again, HOW ALL of these Truly meaningful questions, and/or discussion, can be, will be, and WERE, resolved is a Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY process, indeed.

[Age]

It means that this is what "free will" meant for centuries to most people, whether you two miserable fucks like it or not.

The Stoics were compatibilists.

What they meant by free-will is what I think free-will means today.

Can you, and will you, be absolutely CLEAR of not just what those human beings meant by 'free-will', exactly, (and you do not have to inform 'us' of HOW you KNOW, without any doubt at all what 'those people' meant, exactly), as well as what so-called "compatibilists" AND "stoics" are, exactly, also?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

It means that this is what "free will" meant for centuries to most people, whether you two miserable fucks like it or not.

The Stoics were compatibilists.

What they meant by free-will is what I think free-will means today.

And why do you think that this is what 'free will' means today, when it's well-known that it doesn't?

LOL
LOL
LOL

This is not what 'it' means today, and, this is 'well-known'.

This, REALLY, was how these ones, back in those 'olden days' REALLY 'thought', and 'believed'.

[Age]

And why do you think that this is what 'free will' means today, when it's well-known that it doesn't?

Today it means some dumb shit that doesn't' make any sense.

The ancient Greeks understood the problems and addressed them .

LOL So, the "ancient Greeks", supposedly, understood 'the problems', and addressed 'the problems', but others, after them, have just IGNORED 'what addressed' 'the problems'.

Again, this thread is another prime of how and when human beings will use just about 'any word/s' in the hope that just somehow 'those words' will back up and support their 'currently' held onto BELIEF/S, and/or PRESUMPTIONS.

Do you 'understand' 'the problems' here "phyllo"?

If yes, then will you 'address' them, for 'us'?

If no, then why not?

[Age]

...my point remains: 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.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

You keep repeating this, Henry, but I'm not sure you know what it means. All rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. What else can they possibly be? The right to life doesn't protect one from cancer or earthquakes. Instead, it confers an obligation on other people not to kill anyone. The right to liberty confers an obligation not to enslave of imprison other people.

But, let 'us' not forget that the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-SUPERIOR "henry quirk" BELIEVES, absolutely, that it has 'A, (self-given), right' to TAKE 'another's life' or 'another's liberty' if "Henry quirk" just assumes another might 'take off with' what it claims is 'its property or stuff'.

Property is problematic. First of all, concepts of property differ from culture to culture. The Divine Right of Kings suggested that the entire country was the king's property, which he doled out to others at his whim. IN most hunting and gathering societies there are few things that can be considered "private property". An animal killed by a hunter is not his property; custom and norms demand that shall be shared among the group. In our society, custom, norms and laws mandate that some portion of one's earnings be shared among the group (taxes). Property -- it seems -- cannot thus be a "natural right". Instead, it is a fiat (legal or customary) right.

IN addition, the obligations involved in rights conflict with each other. Property rights do absolutely nothing EXCEPT limit the liberty of those who respect them. If someone owns land, he can legally (and maybe morally) prevent other people from having the liberty to walk across it. If you shoot the six-year-old who picks up your dropped penny, you are asserting your right to property while violating his right to life and liberty.

This, I do not think, could be expressed more succinctly.

Now, it is just 'hoping' that "henry quirk" will see past its OWN beliefs, here.

[Belinda]

...my point remains: 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.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

You keep repeating this, Henry, but I'm not sure you know what it means. All rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. What else can they possibly be? The right to life doesn't protect one from cancer or earthquakes. Instead, it confers an obligation on other people not to kill anyone. The right to liberty confers an obligation not to enslave of imprison other people.

But, let 'us' not forget that the ALL-POWERFUL and ALL-SUPERIOR "henry quirk" BELIEVES, absolutely, that it has 'A, (self-given), right' to TAKE 'another's life' or 'another's liberty' if "Henry quirk" just assumes another might 'take off with' what it claims is 'its property or stuff'.

Property is problematic. First of all, concepts of property differ from culture to culture. The Divine Right of Kings suggested that the entire country was the king's property, which he doled out to others at his whim. IN most hunting and gathering societies there are few things that can be considered "private property". An animal killed by a hunter is not his property; custom and norms demand that shall be shared among the group. In our society, custom, norms and laws mandate that some portion of one's earnings be shared among the group (taxes). Property -- it seems -- cannot thus be a "natural right". Instead, it is a fiat (legal or customary) right.

IN addition, the obligations involved in rights conflict with each other. Property rights do absolutely nothing EXCEPT limit the liberty of those who respect them. If someone owns land, he can legally (and maybe morally) prevent other people from having the liberty to walk across it. If you shoot the six-year-old who picks up your dropped penny, you are asserting your right to property while violating his right to life and liberty.

This, I do not think, could be expressed more succinctly.

Now, it is just 'hoping' that "henry quirk" will see past its OWN beliefs, here.

'Natural rights' as advocated by Henry Quirk are as may be justified by creation and maybe also a Creator. Let's put that discussion aside for the moment and think about Henry's frequent contention that each individual has the absolute right to their own property.
This seems fair enough initially , after all I myself and no doubt henry too have worked hard ans taken risks with health and immediate satisfactions to accrue a decent place to live in and enough to eat etc..

The above is simplistic though! For instance I know for a fact that the generally high standard of living of most individuals in the UK, America, and much of Europe is due to African slaves having their lives, liberties, and possessions stolen from them, and huge capital investments in slavery. How then do I or Henry have natural rights to our possessions.
Not to mention the present comparative poverty of first nations in Americas and Australia who had their possessions stolen from them to benefit the thieves who were the colonisers.

Henry's right wing beliefs and others' rebuttals of same are only indirectly linked to the metaphysics of compatibilism, so I wont say any more about right wing libertarianism, except to recommend that nobody, especially Henry, be confused by the similarity in English between 'libertarian' on the one hand, and 'liberty' or freedom on the other.

[Age]

Btw, to those who only mean everyday decision-making by free will: it's obvious that humans make everyday decisions, what do you need a philosophical debate for here?

And, LOL what has this one so-called 'philosophical debate', which has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, actually resolved, and solved?

In fact, what progress has actually been made in 'this philosophical debate'.

[Belinda]

Btw, to those who only mean everyday decision-making by free will: it's obvious that humans make everyday decisions, what do you need a philosophical debate for here?

And, LOL what has this one so-called 'philosophical debate', which has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, actually resolved, and solved?

In fact, what progress has actually been made in 'this philosophical debate'.

How was it for you, Age?

[Alexiev]

No, it just limits us -- all of us -- to doin' what we like with our own lives, liberties, and properties.

Take you and me. Your life, your liberty, your property: you can do whatever you choose with all of that. My life, my liberty, my property: I can do whatever I choose with with all of that. What neither of us can morally do: what we choose with the other's life, liberty, and property. The only conflict is when I decide yours is mine, ought to be mine, will be mine, and, whether you like it or not, I take it. I take your life, I take your liberty, I take your property. Is it truly a violation of my liberty to be prohbited, morally, from murdering you, raping you, slaving you, stealing from you, or defrauding you? Really?



Do you really think it's a moral expression of your liberty to take my life without just cause or to leash me and put me to work in your fields or to take my sister and force sex on her or to hoodwink my ma into buying sumthin' she'd never drop a dime on if she knew it was a lemon? This is not liberty: it's license. It's murder, slavery, rape, and fraud. You really think liberty encompasses these? You really think it's a bad thing you don't get to use other people as you choose?

.

Like Catherine Morland you are using "liberty" as a vague, meaningless term freighted with emotional connotations. You don't want to admit that any limits on liberty are morally acceptable. But, of course, they are. All laws limit liberty. That's all they do and all they can do. If you freely behave in an illegal manner, your liberty will be further limited. You will be imprisoned.

No, it trumps murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud. Of course it seems you feel your liberty isn't complete without being able to violate someone else's. You don't really think that, do you?

NOt only do I think it, but so does everyone else who know the meaning of the word "liberty". That doesn't mean we think liberty should never be limited. Of course it should be limited, by laws, and, sometimes, by other means. When you shoot the robber, you are limiting his life and liberty. Personally, I think that you would be a jerk for doing so, but you somehow feel justified. Nonetheless, you cannot deny you would be limiting his life and liberty.

No, that's not true. Different legislative schemes are used to blunt and violate person's natural rights. There's where your differing definitions come into play. Joe buys a building. He's met Stan's asking price and he owns the building. The gov wants its cut: taxes, licensing fees, business or residential fees, various mandatory insurances. On top of that he has to ask permission, and pay for the privilege, to use his property. If the space isn't zoned for the bookstore he wants to open, well, there won't be a bookstore. So, on top of fairly and voluntarily transacting with Stan, Joe is also robbed and and defrauded by people supposedly working for him, people he may have never consented to be ruled by. Those folks work hard, under the cover of democracy, to steal from and slave Joe. You condone this, yeah? Your liberty is somehow not complete unless Joe is kept under thumb?

As for those cultural differences: if a culture frowns on, say, owning pick up trucks, but never prohibits them, they (those in and supporting the culture) have done nuthin' wrong. I can still own my truck and they can go to hell.

You see the difference, yeah?

Whence came these rights? Are you just making them up? Or are they part of some cultural fabric? If the latter (which is clearly the case as I see it) then you are simply mistaken about the cultural fabric. Property is as property does. Cultures can and do define it however they want, both legally and morally. Get rid of that gas guzzling pickup, and get an electric car, for goodness sake.

Again, you don't really believe your not being able to do as you like with what is mine truly is a violation of your liberty, do you?

Again, of course I do, and so does everyone else who actually knows the meaning of the word "liberty": the power or scope to act as one pleases. We might hope that it would never please us to trespass, rob, murder, or rape, but most of us agree that laws limiting our liberty to do so are fair and just.

I don't get it. Why are you so invested in the emotional connotations surrounding "liberty" that you are unable or unwilling to think about what it actually means?