New Discovery

[peacegirl]

And for fuck's sake. Every time you use the quoite function you make the same stupid mistake. Just remove line that begins [quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=

If you really need to type your own tags all the time.

You mean at the top? I'll try.

[Atla]

AI says no major or serious philosopher (not a single one) has said that determinism implies we are forced to act against our will.

(Did you know btw that objectivity is defined as intersubjectivity? I heard this in a conversation about FSKs.)

[peacegirl]

You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philsophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?

I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.

You wouldn't know because you don't what his discovery is, so why shouldn't I tell you that none of them came up with the same thing my dad did?

I've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing or causing to do something "against one's will." Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.

Peacegirl, you reify will. Will is a process not a thing.

It can be seen as both. If it's a process, it seems it would be something that doesn't belong to us; we are just going along for the ride. On the other hand, human will can be thought of as a thing that is part of us, that we possess.

The question of whether human will is a process or a thing is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways:

Process: Some perspectives view the human will as a process, where it involves conscious decision-making and rational thought. This view emphasizes the role of intellect and reflection in shaping choices and actions.

Thing: Conversely, other interpretations suggest that the human will is a distinct entity, akin to a thing, which can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human nature. This perspective often contrasts with the idea of will as a mere process.


In summary, the human will can be understood as both a process of decision-making and a thing that embodies the essence of human nature.


4 Sources

You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philosophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?

I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.

I've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing, not like having a gun to someone's head, but having the power to override someone's will. Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.

So you haven't read these philosophers or anything like that. But you've had some sort of conversation that doesn't name names about them?

Determinism as surrendering one's own will to an external force and that your choices are not up to you.

Many people dislike the idea of determinism because they believe it leads to moral relativism and a loss of autonomy.

Some argue that determinism suggests that human actions are predetermined, which can lead to a lack of moral responsibility and justification for actions.

1. Others fear that if people believe they are not free to make choices, it may result in unethical behavior, as they may feel less constrained by their actions.
2. Additionally, determinism is often viewed as incompatible with the concept of free will, which many people believe is essential for ethical behavior and moral responsibility.
3.These perspectives highlight the complex relationship between determinism and autonomy in discussions about morality and human behavior.

You have been trying to overrule Atla and I and Belinda anyone else really when we tell you that philosophers don't actually argue that determinism results in people being forced to do things against their will. You are bullshitting us.

You are on the spot, you made this up, or your dad made it up and you never bothered to find out.

I'm still trying to learn how to get rid of some of the tags. I'll keep trying. I'm sure FlashDangerpants will be there to help me and laugh that I haven't figure it out. Anyway, I'm not a bullshitter. I don't have it in me. I am saying that this concern regarding determinism forcing a move against our will has been discussed in certain circles. People are worried that if determinism were true, people would be like dominoes falling over from the previous dominoes with no say at all.

[Atla]

Determinism as surrendering one's own will to an external force

What external force? Did you seriously think that?

(Note to others: Wait, is that what iambig believes too?)

[peacegirl]

Determinism as surrendering one's own will to an external force

What external force? Did you seriously think that?

(Note to others: Wait, is that what iambig believes too?)

I don't personally think that. It's just something that comes up in discussions. Determinism: A force that causes... means, to many people, that they are forced to do what they do without their consent, or against their will.

[FlashDangerpants]

You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philsophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?

I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.

You wouldn't know because you don't what his discovery is, so why shouldn't I tell you that none of them came up with the same thing my dad did?

Because what they do involves premises arranged in support of every conclusion. What your dad did was nothing like that, he just arranged a story with a bunch of loosely connected assertions in it to sound a bit like an argument for people who don't really understand reason and logic. That is why.

I've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing or causing to do something "against one's will." Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.

Peacegirl, you reify will. Will is a process not a thing.

It can be seen as both. If it's a process, it seems it would be something that doesn't belong to us; we are just going along for the ride. On the other hand, human will can be thought of as a thing that is part of us, that we possess.

The question of whether human will is a process or a thing is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways:

Process: Some perspectives view the human will as a process, where it involves conscious decision-making and rational thought. This view emphasizes the role of intellect and reflection in shaping choices and actions.

Thing: Conversely, other interpretations suggest that the human will is a distinct entity, akin to a thing, which can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human nature. This perspective often contrasts with the idea of will as a mere process.


In summary, the human will can be understood as both a process of decision-making and a thing that embodies the essence of human nature.

Because of your habit of typing your own tags, Belinda did not get notified you quoted her there. Burying that in the middle of what looks like a reply to me places a burden on her that doesn't seem quite fair.

And if you are going to AI to write your response, please do the decent thing and declare it. Belinda loves AI though, so she won't mind. She gets it to dress up as Spinoza and pose as a dead philosopher for her.

4 Sources

So you haven't read these philosophers or anything like that. But you've had some sort of conversation that doesn't name names about them?

Determinism as surrendering one's own will to an external force and that your choices are not up to you.

Many people dislike the idea of determinism because they believe it leads to moral relativism and a loss of autonomy.

Some argue that determinism suggests that human actions are predetermined, which can lead to a lack of moral responsibility and justification for actions.

1. Others fear that if people believe they are not free to make choices, it may result in unethical behavior, as they may feel less constrained by their actions.
2. Additionally, determinism is often viewed as incompatible with the concept of free will, which many people believe is essential for ethical behavior and moral responsibility.
3.These perspectives highlight the complex relationship between determinism and autonomy in discussions about morality and human behavior.

Again with the slop. Worse, you didn't even bother to get the AI to address the actual controversy for you. If you try to fob me off one more time with a pointless diversion into why you think determinism frightens people I will call you a name that you will deserve.

I challenged you to show me a real life philosopher you haven't invented who actually claims that determinism means being forced to act against one's will. You are pissing me off with your bad faith bullshit. I do not believe for a second you are as confused as you pretend here. You are attempting to bullshit me and it is very irritating.

You have been trying to overrule Atla and I and Belinda anyone else really when we tell you that philosophers don't actually argue that determinism results in people being forced to do things against their will. You are bullshitting us.

You are on the spot, you made this up, or your dad made it up and you never bothered to find out.

I'm still trying to learn how to get rid of some of the tags. I'll keep trying. I'm sure FlashDangerpants will be there to help me and laugh that I haven't figure it out. Anyway, I'm not a bullshitter. I don't have it in me. I am saying that this concern regarding determinism forcing a move against our will has been discussed in certain circles. People are worried that if determinism were true, people would be like dominoes falling over from the previous dominoes with no say at all.

You have plenty of it in you. You are clearly mendacious. I don't care about certain anonymous circles, you said that it is part of the philosophical definition of determinism and when Atla and I (and Belinda when she gets round to it) corrected that faulty assertion you decided to engage in dishonesty to deflect. You probably gave the AI the proper task of covering your blushes here and failed because there's no sources.

Please just come clean while there is still time. It is better to learn from making mistakes (including overcommitting to bad positions long after you realise they are busted) that to just repeat them like an idiot.

[peacegirl]

You are ignoring the actual question yet again. Which of these philsophers can you quote telling us that determinism makes us do stuff against our will?

I really don't need telling that none of them came up with the same thing your dad did.

You wouldn't know because you don't what his discovery is, so why shouldn't I tell you that none of them came up with the same thing my dad did?

Because what they do involves premises arranged in support of every conclusion. What your dad did was nothing like that, he just arranged a story with a bunch of loosely connected assertions in it to sound a bit like an argument for people who don't really understand reason and logic. That is why.

I've listened to people discussing the definition of determinism to mean forcing or causing to do something "against one's will." Don't pin me down because it wasn't attributed to any one philosopher. It was a definition used in conversation.

Peacegirl, you reify will. Will is a process not a thing.

It can be seen as both. If it's a process, it seems it would be something that doesn't belong to us; we are just going along for the ride. On the other hand, human will can be thought of as a thing that is part of us, that we possess.

The question of whether human will is a process or a thing is subjective and can be interpreted in various ways:

Process: Some perspectives view the human will as a process, where it involves conscious decision-making and rational thought. This view emphasizes the role of intellect and reflection in shaping choices and actions.

Thing: Conversely, other interpretations suggest that the human will is a distinct entity, akin to a thing, which can be seen as a fundamental aspect of human nature. This perspective often contrasts with the idea of will as a mere process.

In summary, the human will can be understood as both a process of decision-making and a thing that embodies the essence of human nature.

FlashDangerpants”]Because of your habit of typing your own tags, Belinda did not get notified you quoted her there. Burying that in the middle of what looks like a reply to me places a burden on her that doesn't seem quite fair.

4 Sources

I made a mistake fiddling with the tags. Sorry Belinda and anyone who I misquoted.

And if you are going to AI to write your response, please do the decent thing and declare it. Belinda loves AI though, so she won't mind. She gets it to dress up as Spinoza and pose as a dead philosopher for her.

That’s funny. Of course I will declare it. I thought people knew because I left “Source” at the bottom if people wanted to further their exploration.

[peacegirl]

I saw that the thread got too long. I can't fix that post but I'll try better next time. I won't use tags for my name. I am sure things will get cleared up. Thanks FlashDangerpants.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don’t agree with you. Why can’t you try to see where the two principles lead rather than wasting all this time telling me it’s a made up story that isn’t connected.

I am going to explain some stuff. Please just read it from one end to the other before you hit reply (which I don't think is your habit), and then just reply with a fulsome answer to the points. Maybe don't bother chopping the text up, the following short paragraphs are a continuous thought that doesn't need splitting up anyway....

The book you are flogging does not contain arguments of the typical philosophical sort that use premises and conclusions in a logical and supporting framework. Why is this a problem? It is a problem because you are presenting what you believe are arguments that we ought to find persuasive not because we are very nice and easily persuaded people, but because we would be in error not to agree with them. That is what logical philosophical arguments are for.

The book you are flogging tries to persuade by revelation. Here is a purported fact about X, here is a purported fact about Y, here is how that all fits into my story about making the world a better place .... It intermittently mimics a philosophical argument by saying if purported fact X were not so then ABC would occur. But it doesn't actually have the structure of premise and conclusion that a real philosophical argument would contain. As before, I am not interested in being told that I am wrong here, if a I am wrong you can show me by listing the premises and conclusion of an argument it contains. As long as the premises are valid and the structure is such that if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true I am wrong. It should be easy to show that I am wrong if I am. Otherwise we should just proceed on agreed grounds that this book simply does not use premise and conclusion based argument. We don't' have to lie to ourselves about that any more.

But the problem with switching from a logical mode of argument to a storytelling mode is that people can just not buy the story if they don't find it persuasive, and there's no real reason they should not. It might make peacegirl sad because she likes the story and she thinks it would be super cool if the whole world liked it along with her, but there is no persuasive power in that. Your preferences are not evidence of import or truth.

So what I am telling you does matter. Your efforts to not be told are neither here nor there, you cannot get anywhere with a storytelling argument unless you tell the story incredibly well. I think I have made it rather clear that any story about a dragon with an invisible key guarding the door to knowledge is not well told as far as I am concerned. I have no duty to "yes and" your story, and neither does anyone else.

[peacegirl]

Why the obvious put down, as if I have to discuss every philosopher that ever existed to prove that he was right all along. Do you actually think he did not know these theories on free will and determinism? Do you think he skipped over all of the philosophers that came before him? You're out of your mind.
[/i]

He left school at 14 and repeatedly references one specific "philosopher" as the guy who speaks against determinism. I forget the name, but that guy is just a writer of a couple of history of philosophy books for the Reader's Digest crowd in the 30s and is utterly forgotten today.

He just happened to have written The Story of Civilization. I'm surprised you didn't know who he was. I thought you knew about every well-known philosopher!

Influential American historian and philosopher

Will Durant was an influential American historian and philosopher, best known for his eleven-volume work, "The Story of Civilization," which he co-authored with his wife, Ariel Durant. His approach to philosophy emphasized a total perspective, aiming to unify and humanize historical knowledge, making it accessible to the general public. Durant's significant contributions to philosophy and history earned him the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977. His works, such as "The Story of Philosophy," have sold millions of copies and continue to influence readers' understanding of history and philosophy today.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Story of Civilization

A set of all eleven volumes
Author
Will Durant
Ariel Durant
Language English
Subject History
Published 1935–1975
Publisher Simon & Schuster
Publication place United States
Pages 13,549
ISBN 978-1567310238

The Story of Civilization (1935–1975), by husband and wife Will and Ariel Durant, is an eleven-volume set of books covering both Eastern and Western civilizations for the general reader, with a particular emphasis on European (Western) history.

The series was written over a span of four decades.

The first six volumes of The Story of Civilization are credited to Will Durant alone, with Ariel recognized only in the acknowledgements. Beginning with The Age of Reason Begins, Ariel is credited as a co-author. In the preface to the first volume, Durant states his intention to make the series in five volumes, although this would not turn out to be the case.[1]

The series won a Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968 with the tenth volume in the series, Rousseau and Revolution.[2]

The volumes were best sellers and sold well for many years. Sets of them were frequently offered by book clubs. An unabridged audiobook production of all eleven volumes was produced by the Books on Tape company and was read by Alexander Adams (also known as Grover Gardner).[3]

Volumes
I. Our Oriental Heritage (1935)
This volume covers Near Eastern history until the fall of the Achaemenid Empire in the 330s BC, and the history of India, China, and Japan up to the 1930s.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 1 ~ Our Oriental Heritage ~ Being a History of Civilization in Egypt and the Near East to the Death of Alexander; and in India, China and Japan from the Beginning to Our Own Day; with an Introduction on the Nature and Foundations of Civilization.

II. The Life of Greece (1939)
This volume covers Ancient Greece and the Hellenistic Near East down to the Roman conquest.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 2 ~ The Life of Greece ~ A History of Greek Government, Industry, Manners, Morals, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Literature and Art from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest.

III. Caesar and Christ (1944)
The volume covers the history of Rome and of Christianity until the time of Constantine the Great.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 3 ~ Caesar and Christ ~ This Brilliantly Written History Surveys All Aspects of Roman Life ~ Politics, Economics, Literature, Art, Morals. It Ends with the Conflict of Pagan and Christian Forces and Raises the Curtain on the Great Struggle between Church and State.

IV. The Age of Faith (1950)
This volume covers the Middle Ages in both Europe and the Near East, from the time of Constantine I to that of Dante Alighieri.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 4 ~ The Age of Faith ~ A History of Medieval Civilization ~ Christian, Islamic, and Judaic ~ from Constantine to Dante ~ A.D. 325 - 1300.

V. The Renaissance (1953)
This volume covers the history of Italy from c.1300 to the mid 16th century, focusing on the Italian Renaissance.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 5 ~ The Renaissance ~ A History of Civilization in Italy from the Birth of Petrarch to the Death of Titian ~ 1304 to 1576.

VI. The Reformation (1957)
This volume covers the history of Europe outside of Italy from around 1300 to 1564, focusing on the Protestant Reformation.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 6 ~ The Reformation ~ A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin ~ 1300 - 1564.

VII. The Age of Reason Begins (1961)
This volume covers the history of Europe and the Near East from 1559 to 1648.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 7 ~ The Age of Reason Begins ~ A History of European Civilization in the Period of Shakespeare, Bacon, Montaigne, Rembrandt, Galileo and Descartes ~ 1558 - 1648.

VIII. The Age of Louis XIV (1963)
This volume covers the period of Louis XIV of France in Europe and the Near East.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 8 ~ The Age of Louis XIV ~ A History of European Civilization in the Period of Pascal, Molière, Cromwell, Milton, Peter the Great, Newton and Spinoza: 1648-1715.

IX. The Age of Voltaire (1965)
This volume covers the period of the Age of Enlightenment, as exemplified by Voltaire, focusing on the period between 1715 and 1756 in France, Britain, and Germany.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 9 ~ The Age of Voltaire ~ A History of Civilization in Western Europe from 1715 to 1756, with Special Emphasis on the Conflict between Religion and Philosophy.

X. Rousseau and Revolution (1967)

Ariel and Will Durant with a copy of Rousseau and Revolution in 1967
This volume centers on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his times. It received the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction in 1968.[4]

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 10 ~ Rousseau and Revolution ~ A History of Civilization in France, England, and Germany from 1756, and in the Remainder of Europe from 1715 to 1789.

XI. The Age of Napoleon (1975)
This volume centers on Napoleon I of France and his times.

Full title: The Story of Civilization ~ 11 ~ The Age of Napoleon ~ A History of European Civilization from 1789 to 1815.

So yeah, I don't think your dad knew a lot about philosophy, and when I mentioned a very influential yet not actually important paper from the 1960s by Strawson at the start of this thread your response was to ask ChatGPT how to argue against Strawson. So no, I don't think you are any better.

I understand Strawson's take on free will and moral responsibility, but he doesn't have the answer.

So yes please. Rather than saying "the philosophers" all think that determinism means we are forced to act against our will, even though everyone here disagrees with that assessment, tell us which philosophers you are actually speaking against so that we can compare findings without bullshitting each other.

No, I'm not here to bullshit but I'm also not here to discuss other philosophers who don't have the answer FlashDangerpants. I know what the basic argument is about, and THEY DON'T HAVE IT!

There is no important argument associated with Will Durant. Everything you listed there is just Reader's Digest history of phil stuff. I got the decades wrong I suppose.

Durant believed in free will, but Lessanas disagreed with him. This formed the basis of his book. If it wasn't for Durant, Lessans would have never made this discovery.

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up, I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase: “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it, I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and Spinoza is right; man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

“That’s what I wanted you to admit. I resent your bringing God into this at all. I don’t go for all that religious crap when you’re talking about science. Lots of people like religion, but I can’t stand all this ritual mumbo jumbo. Most people who go to church are hypocrites anyway. Besides, I know you never believed in religion either, never went to synagogue, and never prayed to God. I say again, I resent this.”
“Why are you telling me how I should go about presenting my discoveries? And why are you always jumping to conclusions? Is that what they taught you in college? Now remember, anytime you don’t like how I present my case, you can leave, but this is equivalent to resigning from chess when you can’t win. In order for me to show you how these so-called miracles come about, you must let me do it my way. Is that asking too much, or am I being unreasonable?”

“I’m sorry, and I apologize. Continue.”

The fact that I never went to synagogue or prayed is equivalent to my not wanting to do other things that didn’t interest me. But after making my discoveries, I knew for a fact that God (this mathematical reality) was not a figment of the imagination. The reason theologians could never solve this problem of evil was because they never attempted to look behind the door marked, ‘Man’s Will Is Not Free.’ Why should they when they were convinced that man’s will was free? Plato, Christ, Spinoza, and many others came into the world and saw the truth, but in a confused sort of way, because the element of evil was always an unsolved factor. When Jesus Christ told the rabbis that God commanded man to turn the other cheek, they threw him out because the Bible told them that God said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” When his enemies nailed him to the cross, he was heard to say, “They know not what they do.” “Turn the other cheek,” he said. Because Christ exemplified in his behavior the principle of forgiveness and because he saw such suffering in the world, he drew to himself those who needed help, and there were many. However, the legacy he left for Christianity was never reconciled. How was it possible to turn the other cheek in a world of such evil? Why was the mind of man so confused, and in spite of every possible criticism, how was religion able to convince the world to be patient and have faith?

Where did these theologians receive their inspiration since there was no way science could reconcile good and evil with a God that caused everything. They solved this problem in a very simple manner by dividing good and evil in half, and God was only responsible for the first. Then they reasoned that God endowed man with freedom of the will to choose good over evil. To theologians, God is the creator of all goodness, and since man does many things considered evil, they were given no choice but to endow him with freedom of the will so that God could be absolved of all responsibility for evil, which was assigned to Satan. This is also the reason why religion is so hostile toward anyone who speaks against free will. Is it any wonder that Christ and Spinoza, plus innumerable others, pulled away from the synagogue? Is it any wonder Spinoza became a heretic and was excommunicated? According to the thinkers of that time, how could any intelligent person believe in Satan? Religion has never been able to reconcile the forces of good and evil with a caring and loving God; therefore, Satan was destined to be born as the opposite of all good in the world.

[peacegirl]

I think I understand why you were harping on the idea that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will, because of his other principle which leads to the two-sided equation. Let me explain: If determinism is the cause of everything we do, then it would become easy for someone to use this as an excuse by saying, "I couldn't help stabbing that person because my will is not free, without having to pay for his crime." But he can't use this as an excuse since nothing can make him stab someone UNLESS HE WANTS TO, FOR OVER THIS HE HAS ABSOLUTE CONTROL. Lessans was bringing this out because it is believed that determinism would allow people to get off the hook left and right without justice being served. This has been an issue for both sides of this debate especially in discussions revolving around moral responsibility. I know Atla said that not being responsible does not mean a person should not be blamed and punished. But blame and punishment are partial deterrents; they don't stop the hardened criminal who doesn't care about threats and is willing to risk what he is about to do for the satisfaction of certain desires (whatever they are). This law of our nature does. Determinists say man is not responsible; libertarians say man is responsible. It's the elephant in the room. This discovery does not give a pass to people who hurt others; it prevents it. Please be patient and stop jumping to conclusions. Is that asking too much?

[FlashDangerpants]

I think I understand why you were harping on the idea that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will

Please just accept that the reason you cannot find any philosopher who has ever claimed that determinism entails being forced to against your own wishes is because you have misunderstood the whole thing and that is simply not what philosophers actually claim.

Don't try to gaslight us. Just get it right, you have no excuse any more.

[peacegirl]

I think I understand why you were harping on the idea that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will

Please just accept that the reason you cannot find any philosopher who has ever claimed that determinism entails being forced to against your own wishes is because you have misunderstood the whole thing and that is simply not what philosophers actually claim.

Don't try to gaslight us. Just get it right, you have no excuse any more.

I just explained the reason why this second principle is so important. And I already said that the conversation has come up because people may think of determinism as turning us into dominoes where we have no say, no will, no agency, and no way to make our own choices. The whole idea that determinism causes us to do what we do makes it sound like the choices that are made are not from us, but from an external source, and therefore these choices could be against our will because our will would not be counted. That's all I'm going to say about this.

[FlashDangerpants]

I think I understand why you were harping on the idea that nothing can compel man to do anything against his will

Please just accept that the reason you cannot find any philosopher who has ever claimed that determinism entails being forced to against your own wishes is because you have misunderstood the whole thing and that is simply not what philosophers actually claim.

Don't try to gaslight us. Just get it right, you have no excuse any more.

I just explained the reason why this second principle is so important. And I already said that the conversation has come up probably because people think of determinism as turning us into dominoes where we have no say, no will, no agency, and no way to make our own choices. That's all I'm going to say about this.

Well, ok, but you have been using a strawman to paint your philosophical opponents with a lie, so your failure to remediate this situation detracts from any credibility you might have had.

[FlashDangerpants]

Durant believed in free will, but Lessanas disagreed with him. This formed the basis of his book. If it wasn't for Durant, Lessans would have never made this discovery.

Durant is a nobody. I mean I guess I can see how a book absurdly titled "Mansions of philosophy" could have inspired your dad's taste for purple prose, but beyond that, well... You just don't get to be an important or memorable philosopher just by making commentary. Flash Dangerpants won't be remembered by future generations because he is a critic not a creator of important new argument. Durant is just a more famous version of that, but the fame is rapidly evaporating.

It is interesting to observe at this point that Durant was indirectly involved in my discovery. To give you a little background, it was November of 1959 when I received an amazing revelation that would change the course of my life. I happened to overhear on the radio a priest state very dogmatically that man has freedom of the will, and the hair stood up on my arms like a cat ready to fight. I didn’t understand why that happened and didn’t pay much attention to it at the time but felt that I was chilled for some reason. Up until that time I never gave much thought to the subject of free will, not rejecting or accepting it, but when this chill occurred every time the subject came up, I began to see the connection. That night in a dream I kept hearing this phrase: “The solution to all the problems plaguing mankind lies hidden behind the fallacious belief that man’s will is free.” I still didn’t understand where it was leading, but the next day I started to reread Durant’s chapter on free will in his book Mansions of Philosophy. When I completed it, I remarked, “He really doesn’t know what he is talking about, and Spinoza is right; man’s will is not free.” Then, after nine strenuous months, I shouted, “Eureka, I have found it!” and I have had no rest ever since. After opening the door of determinism and proving conclusively that man’s will is not free, I saw another sign that read: ‘Hidden behind this door, you will discover the solution to the problem of evil — the long-awaited Messiah.’ I applied the key, opened the door, and after many months in the deepest analysis, I made a finding that was so fantastic, it took me several years to understand its full significance for all mankind. I saw how this new world must become a reality in a very short time.

Uhm... try reading that paragraph again as if for the first time. So about this voice thing, is this going to be one of those situations where he doesn't mean to be taken literally?

Let me put this bluntly. Lots of people turn up on philosophy sites like this one and have a big theory that makes sense of everything and fixes all problems just like yours. And they have revelations to support them. And very often they have had visions or they heard a "voice". The best one was Bob the Baptist with his "Ouzo Prophecy" which can be read about here. Bob of course was a victim of delusional disorder which is why he was in such regular contact with a mad God who told him crazy shit.

A lesser, but more recent one is attofishpi, who won't be able to respond your questions here because he wrote some bad things and got banned, but the good news is that I believe he's over at ILP which seems to be a place people recognise you from. Fishpi believes God communicates with him via a series of extremely bad puns and some weird knee touching stuff. Fishpi is sadly both an alcoholic and an unmedicated schizophrenic, but mostly he is boring and his puns are stupid. The Ouzo Prophecy is much better, but that guy is dead now so he also won't be able to answer your questions.

So, well, maybe I was wrong about your dad. I always assumed he was just a grifter who saw how much money Hubbard made out of Scientology and figured he do the same, but fell flat on his face. But perhaps it was just a severe bout of Delusional Disorder of the grandiose type. Atla is usually better at psychiatric shenanigans than I am, I refer you to his care for a second opinion.