compatibilism

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

BigMike
Posts: 2210
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:59 am Thanks for your feedback.
Compatibilism doesn't make any sense at all.

Kant wrote "This is a wretched subterfuge with which some persons still let themselves be put off, and so think they have solved, with a petty word-jugglery, that difficult problem, at the solution of which centuries have labored in vain, and which can therefore scarcely be found so completely on the surface." In modern language, that means "This is a terrible trick that some people still fall for. They think that by playing with words, they've solved a hard problem that people have been trying to solve for centuries but haven't been able to, so it's not likely to be so clear on the surface."

Wallace Matson described compatibilism as "the most flabbergasting instance of the fallacy of changing the subject to be encountered anywhere in the complete history of sophistry… [a ploy that] was intended to take in the vulgar, but which has beguiled the learned in our time." Compatibilism, in his view, was the most shocking example of the fallacy of changing the subject he had ever seen in the history of obfuscation; a trick that was meant to fool the uneducated but has now fooled the educated.

William James considered this concept to be a "quagmire of evasion," "eulogistic terminology," and a "mere word-grabbing game played by soft determinists."

Daniel Dennett says that regarding free will "everyday folks mean something demonstrably preposterous."

In short, compatibilists are not susceptible to reason. Their beliefs are not based on evidence or facts; rather, they have blind faith (blind to facts) in a preconceived notion that they are god-like (created in the image of God), and possess god-like abilities. It is extremely disheartening to see how many of us so willingly embrace a lie when we know that evidence shows it to be false. Upon internalizing the falsehood, compatibilists look around in disbelief and wonder what is wrong with the world today. They are completely oblivious to the fact that "ex falso quodlibet" predicts that all forms of insanity, exactly as observed in the world today, will result from the belief in a contradiction like compatibilism. They share responsibility for the madness.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:15 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 9:04 am
popeye1945 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:43 am
Free will is egocentricity.
In a determined universe, what the heck does egocentricity mean? Or do you think they chose their belief?
Iwannaplato,

Perhaps you believe that if you are not in control that defines determinism,
Well, no one's in control, nothing is in control, everything is in control.

In a sense it's like a block universe. A four dimentional thing.
when it just means you are part of something much larger than yourself. Egocentrism comes quite naturally to the individual, for in some very real sense we all experience ourselves as the center of our own universe,
Perhaps you don't realize that egocentrism is a pejorative term:
excessive interest in oneself and concern for one's own welfare or advantage at the expense of or in disregard of others.
that is what it is to experience the world. It is a limited vision, one that is detrimental to being a healthy part of something larger than yourself, realize you are not in this world you are of this world, a world that governs your every aspect. You are a reactionary creature, that is how you function in the world.
I don't think reactionary - a person who is opposed to political or social change or new ideas - works here. I think you mean reactive.

Let's say you are correct that believing in free will - not something I believe in or rule out - is detrimental. It's also not caused by any person, in determinism. They are not in control.

So, to me using a pejorative term about them indicates to me that you haven't quite integrated the implications of determinism.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Daniel Dennet himself is a compatibilist
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:59 am Thanks for your feedback.
Despite Big Mike saying things like this....
How can someone be responsible for their action if they have no control over their thoughts or actions?
He still manages to hold you responsible [seem my emphasis below] and walk and talk like the duck of disapproval and blame.
In short, compatibilists are not susceptible to reason. Their beliefs are not based on evidence or facts; rather, they have blind faith (blind to facts) in a preconceived notion that they are god-like (created in the image of God), and possess god-like abilities. It is extremely disheartening to see how many of us so willingly embrace a lie when we know that evidence shows it to be false. Upon internalizing the falsehood, compatibilists look around in disbelief and wonder what is wrong with the world today. They are completely oblivious to the fact that "ex falso quodlibet" predicts that all forms of insanity, exactly as observed in the world today, will result from the belief in a contradiction like compatibilism. They share responsibility for the madness.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:10 am Daniel Dennet himself is a compatibilist
And David Hume and Hobbes and hell, even Kant is considered a compatiblist by some...
https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Compatibil ... 0801429234
and he certainly believed in moral responsibility.

And the odd thing is that while Big Mike believes whole heartedly in determinism and not in blame/disapproval/moral responsibility, when he is talking to compatiblists or people who believe in free will, all that goes out the window.
BigMike
Posts: 2210
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:10 am Daniel Dennet himself is a compatibilist
Oh, Flannel, my dear compatibilist friend! What a niceway to try to change the subject. I've got a bone to pick with you, and it's a humorous one, so don't get your undies in a twist.

Listen up, my friend, I never said that Dr. Dennett wasn't a compatibilist. But let's face it, he's like a chicken who's too scared to cross the road when it comes to embracing the fact that free will is total hogwash.

I mean, come on, Flannel, you and I both know that free will is just a fancy illusion that we tell ourselves to make sense of our lives. But at least I have the guts to admit it, unlike our dear old Dr. Dennett, who's content to sit on the fence and straddle both sides like a philosophical contortionist.

So let's raise a glass to the joys of determinism and laugh in the face of those who cling to the myth of free will! Cheers, my compatibilist buddy!
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:19 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:10 am Daniel Dennet himself is a compatibilist
And David Hume and Hobbes and hell, even Kant is considered a compatiblist by some...
https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Compatibil ... 0801429234
and he certainly believed in moral responsibility.

And the odd thing is that while Big Mike believes whole heartedly in determinism and not in blame/disapproval/moral responsibility, when he is talking to compatiblists or people who believe in free will, all that goes out the window.
Yes, I said Dennet's name in particular because he quoted Dennet in his series of quotes demonstrating how ridiculous compatibilism is.

As far as I know, most academic philosophers today are compatibilists.
BigMike
Posts: 2210
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:15 am
I'm gonna have to put you on mute.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

Let's try to imagine this: pick any context, political, at work, in the family....

Someone walks up to you and says (like Big Mike did)

You share responsibility for the madness.

What human is not going to receive that as something other than in part disapproval?
What human is not going to intend that as disapproval?

Especially since the person saying it does not consider himself responsible for the madness, given his not believing the thing that leads to this.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Iwannaplato »

BigMike wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:22 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:15 am
I'm gonna have to put you on mute.
Rather than pointing out the flaw in anything I've said. Putting me on foe is certainly more honest to your self than throwing out non-responses, which is where you ended up.

No skin off my nose.
BigMike
Posts: 2210
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:21 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:19 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:10 am Daniel Dennet himself is a compatibilist
And David Hume and Hobbes and hell, even Kant is considered a compatiblist by some...
https://www.amazon.com/Kants-Compatibil ... 0801429234
and he certainly believed in moral responsibility.

And the odd thing is that while Big Mike believes whole heartedly in determinism and not in blame/disapproval/moral responsibility, when he is talking to compatiblists or people who believe in free will, all that goes out the window.
Yes, I said Dennet's name in particular because he quoted Dennet in his series of quotes demonstrating how ridiculous compatibilism is.

As far as I know, most academic philosophers today are compatibilists.
Hey Flannel, my compatibilist friend! You know what they say: "You're not supposed to believe something just because someone else said it. Use your own brain!" But let's be honest, isn't that why we're here, trying to make sense of this crazy world using our own noodle?

I mean, we both know that free will is just a big ol' bag of baloney, and that the real fun comes from debating the nuances of compatibilism. But hey, don't take my word for it, use your own brain, Flannel! You're a smart cookie, and I'm sure you've got some great ideas rattling around in that noggin of yours.

So let's put on our thinking caps, pour ourselves a nice cup of tea, and dive into the murky waters of philosophy. Because at the end of the day, Flannel, it's not about who said what, it's about using our own brains to navigate this wacky world. Cheers to that, my friend!

Why don't you dare to know? "Sapere aude", my dear friend, is a fancy Latin phrase that means "dare to know". But let's be real here, who needs Latin when we've got the English language and a good old-fashioned sense of humor?

So here's the deal, sapere aude is all about having the courage to seek knowledge and think for yourself, even if it means going against the grain. It's like that time your mom told you not to jump off the roof with an umbrella because you'd hurt yourself, but you did it anyway because you wanted to see if Mary Poppins was real.

But seriously, folks, sapere aude is an important concept because it reminds us that knowledge is power, and that we should never be afraid to question the status quo. So the next time someone tells you to "dare to know", just remember that it's not about being reckless, it's about being curious and seeking the truth, even if it means risking a few bumps and bruises along the way.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

You're not really engaging with me or anything I think, you've just turned towards pure mockery apparently - at least that's how it appears.

I'm going to withhold from this interaction until something about that changes.
BigMike
Posts: 2210
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:51 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by BigMike »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:34 am You're not really engaging with me or anything I think, you've just turned towards pure mockery apparently - at least that's how it appears.

I'm going to withhold from this interaction until something about that changes.
Oh, Flannel, my dear friend, I've got some good news and some bad news for you. The good news is that your application has been reviewed and processed. The bad news is that it's been granted, and you're officially on my foe list.

But don't worry, Flannel, being on my foe list is kind of like being a superhero's nemesis. It's a badge of honor, really. I mean, who wouldn't want to be on a list with some of the most nefarious and villainous characters in history, like Darth Vader, Lex Luthor, and...well, you get the idea.

So let's raise a glass to your newfound notoriety, Flannel! You're now part of an elite group of foes who have challenged me and lost. But don't let it get you down, my friend. There's always next time, and who knows, maybe one day you'll make it onto my friend list. Until then, keep on being a worthy adversary, Flannel!
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

"you can't fire me, because I quit!"

Fantastic response.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 4302
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: compatibilism

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 11:25 am
Sorry if I'm asking you to rehash something you've already said, but what are your positions about all this?

Are you a determinist? Do you believe in free will?
Post Reply