compatibilism

[Age]

I see what you mean. You and I disagree about the meaning of 'philosophy'.

You are not the only one who thinks philosophy is what you say it is.

It would be nice, though, if you could understand that what philosophy means for some others is that it's an academic discipline with worthwhile practical applications.

What do you mean by if I could understand that what 'philosophy' means for some others is that it is an academic discipline with worthwhile practical applications?

I ALREADY KNEW that to some others 'philosophy' is an academic discipline with worthwhile practical applications.

I ALSO ALREADY KNEW this BECAUSE some human beings pay exorbitant amounts of money to some academic institutions to do what is called 'philosophy classes' or 'philosophy studies'. And, I would hope that they would pay so much money 'there', which could have, obviously, been far better spent in other places, BECAUSE they BELIEVED, or KNEW, that the so-called 'academic discipline' known as 'philosophy' had worthwhile practical applications.

In other words I would hope that they did not choose to do that 'academic discipline' for other reasons because they felt that they had to 'study' some thing just to keep other like their parents happy, for example.

WHY would you have even BEGUN to PRESUME that I could NOT understand that what 'philosophy' means to some is that 'philosophy' is an academic discipline, with worthwhile practical applications?

I ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, and for a while now, that 'philosophy' is an academic discipline, with worthwhile practical applications, to some.

But what you mean by 'philosophy' and what most others mean by 'philosophy' are so different that discussions are at cross purposes.

If you have not yet already noticed, what quite a lot of words used in philosophy forums/discussions mean varies greatly between speakers/writers and hearers/readers, and even what words mean to just person, itself, is so different that expressing clearly can be so difficult. As can be seen and proved True throughout this forum.

And, this is not even going into lengths about how many, many words have varying numbers, and varying degrees, of different meanings themselves, with some words containing two exactly opposing words. So, there really is no surprise at all that there are so many discussions among you human being that are at what you call 'cross purposes'. In fact it is no wonder at all why there was so much misunderstanding in 'the world', in the days when this was being written, when one just 'looks at' 'the way' you adults would just 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' things, here.

Actually, have you noticed how often what you mean by a word is so different to most others, as well?

[Alexiev]

Your problem is that there are two senses of "constrained." One means, "forced into," and the other means, "convinced by burden of the evidence." You've mixed the two, and thus you've completely missed Luther's meaning. The Pope was trying to force him to recant; but Luther was not saying, "I cannot form the words to recant." He certainly could have. Lots of people before him did -- especially under the threat of Inquisitorial torture, which was what hung over Luther's head." No, what Luther was saying was, essentially, "I could frame the words, but I will not." And that would be free will. But nowhere is Determinism apparent in that. So it's no illustration of Compatiblism.

If ought implies can, Martin Luther (according to his famous quote) was not making a moral decision, because he "could do no other".

That would be the case, if Determinism were true. And moreover, there would be no such thing as a "moral decision" for anybody -- not just for Luther.

Good thing it's not true.

Yet I think he was freely making a moral choice,...

Then you're not a Determinist...or a Compatibilist.

Luther did not say, "I will not recant." He said, "I can (not recant) do no other." Of course, according to Diarmond Macculloch, he didn't say that, either. And if he did, he said it in German (or maybe Latin).

Luther was a wordsmith. He translated the Bible, and got the better of Erasmus in their famous debates. Had he meant "I will do no other" he probably would have said it.

I assume he meant that given his education, faith and principles it was predetermined that he COULD do no other. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and to mean, and if he did say it he freely chose this position despite his incapability of making a different choice.

[Immanuel Can]

If ought implies can, Martin Luther (according to his famous quote) was not making a moral decision, because he "could do no other".

That would be the case, if Determinism were true. And moreover, there would be no such thing as a "moral decision" for anybody -- not just for Luther.

Good thing it's not true.

Yet I think he was freely making a moral choice,...

Then you're not a Determinist...or a Compatibilist.

Luther did not say, "I will not recant." He said, "I can (not recant) do no other." Of course, according to Diarmond Macculloch, he didn't say that, either. And if he did, he said it in German (or maybe Latin).

Do you literally think that what Luther meant to convey was, "I'm a Determinist, and prior material-physical causes are what's making me not recant?" Are you seriously going to suggest that's what he was implying?

I just have to hear it from you, if that's what you think. Because I honestly don't think anybody else reads it that way. And I'm quite confident it's not what Luther meant.

[Alexiev]

I just have to hear it from you, if that's what you think. Because I honestly don't think anybody else reads it that way. And I'm quite confident it's not what Luther meant.

I have no idea what Martin Luther meant, nor, of course, whether he actually said it (Diarmond Macculloch, who knows more about it than you or I, thinks he didn't).

However, I think it would be a reasonable thing to say and mean. It means, "I am forced not by external parties to say 'I can do no other'. ON the contrary. External parties are trying to force me to recant my position. Nonetheless, given my conscience, faith and belief, I can (not 'will') do no other."

Before entering a monastery, Luther had studied law. So he was adept at phrasing his comments precisely.

[Immanuel Can]

I just have to hear it from you, if that's what you think. Because I honestly don't think anybody else reads it that way. And I'm quite confident it's not what Luther meant.

I have no idea what Martin Luther meant, nor, of course, whether he actually said it (Diarmond Macculloch, who knows more about it than you or I, thinks he didn't).

Most historians think he did say it, of course. But it's irrelevant either way, since Luther was not any expert in Determinism, nor was there any plausiblity to the likelihood of him suddenly and radically changing topics from his voluntary statements and the issue of voluntary recantation, to some irrelevant thought about materialist determination -- a thing in which Luther himself clearly did not believe, and in which the Inquisition had no particular interest.

If his wording was at all ambiguous, still, nothing favours your reading of his meaning. And even were you correct, it would not tell us anything at all about Determinism.

[Belinda]

What do you mean by if I could understand that what 'philosophy' means for some others is that it is an academic discipline with worthwhile practical applications?

I ALREADY KNEW that to some others 'philosophy' is an academic discipline with worthwhile practical applications.

I ALSO ALREADY KNEW this BECAUSE some human beings pay exorbitant amounts of money to some academic institutions to do what is called 'philosophy classes' or 'philosophy studies'. And, I would hope that they would pay so much money 'there', which could have, obviously, been far better spent in other places, BECAUSE they BELIEVED, or KNEW, that the so-called 'academic discipline' known as 'philosophy' had worthwhile practical applications.

In other words I would hope that they did not choose to do that 'academic discipline' for other reasons because they felt that they had to 'study' some thing just to keep other like their parents happy, for example.

WHY would you have even BEGUN to PRESUME that I could NOT understand that what 'philosophy' means to some is that 'philosophy' is an academic discipline, with worthwhile practical applications?

I ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, and for a while now, that 'philosophy' is an academic discipline, with worthwhile practical applications, to some.

But what you mean by 'philosophy' and what most others mean by 'philosophy' are so different that discussions are at cross purposes.

If you have not yet already noticed, what quite a lot of words used in philosophy forums/discussions mean varies greatly between speakers/writers and hearers/readers, and even what words mean to just person, itself, is so different that expressing clearly can be so difficult. As can be seen and proved True throughout this forum.

And, this is not even going into lengths about how many, many words have varying numbers, and varying degrees, of different meanings themselves, with some words containing two exactly opposing words. So, there really is no surprise at all that there are so many discussions among you human being that are at what you call 'cross purposes'. In fact it is no wonder at all why there was so much misunderstanding in 'the world', in the days when this was being written, when one just 'looks at' 'the way' you adults would just 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' things, here.

Actually, have you noticed how often what you mean by a word is so different to most others, as well?

I have indeed noticed that my vocabulary sometimes differs from someone else's.
One of the uses of academic philosophy is that the academic lexicon is more standardised than everyday language, and standardising helps people to understand each other. Another advantage of a standardised lexicon is that knowing and using a precise word for an idea does help to make the idea easier to understand, although imagination does of course do most of the work in this regard.

I say "imagination", and here is an example of a word that means a lot more than the popular idea that it's a synonym for undisciplined fantasy.

[phyllo]

If you have not yet already noticed, what quite a lot of words used in philosophy forums/discussions mean varies greatly between speakers/writers and hearers/readers, and even what words mean to just person, itself, is so different that expressing clearly can be so difficult. As can be seen and proved True throughout this forum.

And, this is not even going into lengths about how many, many words have varying numbers, and varying degrees, of different meanings themselves, with some words containing two exactly opposing words. So, there really is no surprise at all that there are so many discussions among you human being that are at what you call 'cross purposes'. In fact it is no wonder at all why there was so much misunderstanding in 'the world', in the days when this was being written, when one just 'looks at' 'the way' you adults would just 'look at', 'see', and 'discuss' things, here.

Actually, have you noticed how often what you mean by a word is so different to most others, as well?

That's very true.

One can see it in the way that the words "determined" and "predetermined" are used in this thread.

Nothing is 'determined' until it has happened, but many people post as if future events have already happened. Note Iambiguous' "Mary could never not have had an abortion" ... mixing up past and future.

The word 'predetermined' doubles down on the concept by combining before and after into a one oxymoron word. Yet people keep using the word.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is 'determined' until it has happened,

You're mixing up senses of the word. If you look it up, you'll find is has multiple definitions. Oxford has ten (10) definitions, but others, like Websters or Cambridge, list only two or three of those, none of which have anything to do with Determinism.

You are correct to say that one sense of the word "determined" would be something like "over and done." But that's only one use of the term, and not one that has anything to do with the philosophical term "Determination." You're also right to say that if we use the word in that second sense (though not in your first sense), then to add "pre-" would be unnecessary. And that's because Determinism has specifically to do with the following:

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." (Britannica)

"...the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way." (Cambridge)

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

So it does not confuse past, present and future, as you claim. Rather, Determinism is the argument that all events, including all human cognitions and decisions, are nothing more than the coming together of prior physical, chemical, material, or divine causes, such that only one outcome is ever possible, regardless of human perceptions to the contrary, such as the beliefs in will, volition, self, choice, morality, reason, and so on.

Thus, people are not "...post[ing] as if future events have already happened," as you claim. They are rather debating whether or not events can happen as a result of the causal activity of human choice, or whether human choice itself is merely a byproduct of prior forces.

[Belinda]

Nothing is 'determined' until it has happened,

You're mixing up senses of the word. If you look it up, you'll find is has multiple definitions. Oxford has ten (10) definitions, but others, like Websters or Cambridge, list only two or three of those, none of which have anything to do with Determinism.

You are correct to say that one sense of the word "determined" would be something like "over and done." But that's only one use of the term, and not one that has anything to do with the philosophical term "Determination." You're also right to say that if we use the word in that second sense (though not in your first sense), then to add "pre-" would be unnecessary. And that's because Determinism has specifically to do with the following:

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." (Britannica)

"...the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way." (Cambridge)

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

So it does not confuse past, present and future, as you claim. Rather, Determinism is the argument that all events, including all human cognitions and decisions, are nothing more than the coming together of prior physical, chemical, material, or divine causes, such that only one outcome is ever possible, regardless of human perceptions to the contrary, such as the beliefs in will, volition, self, choice, morality, reason, and so on.

Thus, people are not "...post[ing] as if future events have already happened," as you claim. They are rather debating whether or not events can happen as a result of the causal activity of human choice, or whether human choice itself is merely a byproduct of prior forces.

The above relayed by IC illustrates the use of a respectable dictionary by philosophers. Moreover it cost nothing to look it up and saves a lot of misunderstanding

[phyllo]

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." (Britannica)

"...the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way." (Cambridge)

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

All dependent on "antecedent events".

One cannot say that some event will or must happen in the future.

One can say that some event has happened because of what came prior to it.

[Immanuel Can]

"Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs." (The Information Philosopher)

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." (Britannica)

"...the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way." (Cambridge)

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford)

All dependent on "antecedent events".

One cannot say that some event will or must happen in the future.

Whether "one can say" it or not is not really relevant. Determinists believe that, in principle, they could...if all the relevant factors could be put into a computer, say, and nothing forgotten. So they say there is no meaning to the idea of "free will": all "will" is only a seeming, but is really produced by these "antecedent events."

So they literally believe that, if we had all the "antecedent conditions" in hand, we could say in advance exactly what had to happen, and would inevitably happen; and that nothing else but that could happen. It's just that we don't happen to know all the "antecedent conditions." So they think we're actually the pawns of things we don't quite understand...but pawns, nonetheless.

[phyllo]

Determinists believe that, in principle, they could...if all the relevant factors could be put into a computer, say, and nothing forgotten. So they say there is no meaning to the idea of "free will": all "will" is only a seeming, but is really produced by these "antecedent events."

So they literally believe that, if we had all the "antecedent conditions" in hand, we could say in advance exactly what had to happen, and would inevitably happen; and that nothing else but that could happen. It's just that we don't happen to know all the "antecedent conditions." So they think we're actually the pawns of things we don't quite understand...but pawns, nonetheless.

Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

God's knowledge demonstrates the 'inevitability' of it all.

[Immanuel Can]

Determinists believe that, in principle, they could...if all the relevant factors could be put into a computer, say, and nothing forgotten. So they say there is no meaning to the idea of "free will": all "will" is only a seeming, but is really produced by these "antecedent events."

So they literally believe that, if we had all the "antecedent conditions" in hand, we could say in advance exactly what had to happen, and would inevitably happen; and that nothing else but that could happen. It's just that we don't happen to know all the "antecedent conditions." So they think we're actually the pawns of things we don't quite understand...but pawns, nonetheless.

Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Of course it doesn't. Because "know" and "make" are two different verbs, and neither automatically implies the other. Easy.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

Not really. I'm not a Determinist. Nor does the claim that God knows what will happen imply that God makes what happens happen.

I know you'll reply. But I'm not going to say I've "made" you do it. You would have perfect freedom not to. But you will.

[Iwannaplato]

Determinists believe that, in principle, they could...if all the relevant factors could be put into a computer, say, and nothing forgotten. So they say there is no meaning to the idea of "free will": all "will" is only a seeming, but is really produced by these "antecedent events."

So they literally believe that, if we had all the "antecedent conditions" in hand, we could say in advance exactly what had to happen, and would inevitably happen; and that nothing else but that could happen. It's just that we don't happen to know all the "antecedent conditions." So they think we're actually the pawns of things we don't quite understand...but pawns, nonetheless.

Yet when God knows exactly what will happen, you don't think it contradicts free-will.

Of course it doesn't. Because "know" and "make" are two different verbs, and neither automatically implies the other. Easy.

Strange that it should be problematic for determinists but not for you.

Not really. I'm not a Determinist. Nor does the claim that God knows what will happen imply that God makes what happens happen.

I know you'll reply. But I'm not going to say I've "made" you do it. You would have perfect freedom not to. But you will.

So, God won't make it happen, but he knows what will happen. He knows what you will do. And there is only one thing you are going to do, or?
Determinism doesn't mean that anyone, even God needs to make the future happen. It means that it will be that one future. If goes knows, then you will decide what you were always going to decide.

I could have misunderstood what you meant. Let's check....
God knows, for example, everything you will do tomorrow.
What he knows you will do, you will do.
He doesn't make you do it, but he knows. Tomorrow can only go one way, the way that God knows it will. He doesn't choose for you, he does not make your choices for you. But he knows what your choices will be.

That's a form of determinism. So, if the above fits with your beliefs, you have a belief in a form of determinism.
And since, I think it is fair to say, you believe people are responsible for their actions, you are a kind of compatibilist. If those things I tried to check in about do fit your beliefs.

But perhaps they don't.

[Flannel Jesus]

I was thinking about this the other day, about how I fully expect that Immanuel Cans religious beliefs probably amount to determinism even if he'd never call it that, for some reason it another. If God knows what's going to happen, then what does it mean to say you could have done otherwise? Does that mean you can make god wrong? You have the power to make god wrong? Interesting to say the least