Page 284 of 422
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:27 am
by Flannel Jesus
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:50 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 7:45 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 7:18 amIf we are Stooges, he should ask himself why only people he classifies as Stooges take him seriously to any degree at all.
The non-Stooges ignore him almost completely.
You make a good argument that he's right about us. Only a stooge would give him the time of day.
Thank you for noticing and highlighting the self-critical subtext of my post. What's wrong with us??????
Well I just followed you in here XD. What's wrong with you is you are still convinced biggy is capable of having a genuine conservation about this.
I understand why you would think that, there are aspects of him that give that impression of course. And we want to give people the benefit of the doubt - sometimes even years after they've proven they shouldn't be given it.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:46 am
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:27 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 8:50 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 7:45 am
You make a good argument that he's right about us. Only a stooge would give him the time of day.
Thank you for noticing and highlighting the self-critical subtext of my post. What's wrong with us??????
Well I just followed you in here XD. What's wrong with you is you are still convinced biggy is capable of having a genuine conservation about this.
I understand why you would think that, there are aspects of him that give that impression of course. And we want to give people the benefit of the doubt - sometimes even years after they've proven they shouldn't be given it.
Oh, it's like I am the forensic sketch artist drawing the image of a Stooge according to your description, only to find my own face staring back at me.
The horror, the horror......Mr. Sheen.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:02 am
by Flannel Jesus
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:46 am
Oh, it's like I am the forensic sketch artist drawing the image of a Stooge according to your description, only to find my own face staring back at me.
The horror, the horror......Mr. Sheen.
This is a top 20 visual metaphore.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:39 am
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:46 am
Oh, it's like I am the forensic sketch artist drawing the image of a Stooge according to your description, only to find my own face staring back at me.
The horror, the horror......Mr. Sheen.
This is a top 20 visual metaphore.
But Flannel...I was never not going to make that metaphor and then make it a mixed metaphor by throwing in Apocalypse Now. You're not suggesting that I be held responsible for making this metaphor?
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:43 am
by Flannel Jesus
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:39 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:02 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 9:46 am
Oh, it's like I am the forensic sketch artist drawing the image of a Stooge according to your description, only to find my own face staring back at me.
The horror, the horror......Mr. Sheen.
This is a top 20 visual metaphore.
But Flannel...I was never not going to make that metaphor and then make it a mixed metaphor by throwing in Apocalypse Now. You're not suggesting that I be held responsible for making this metaphor?
If it's the laws of the universe that I must hold responsible, then props to the laws of the universe for that one.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:52 am
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:43 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:39 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:02 am
This is a top 20 visual metaphore.
But Flannel...I was never not going to make that metaphor and then make it a mixed metaphor by throwing in Apocalypse Now. You're not suggesting that I be held responsible for making this metaphor?
If it's the laws of the universe that I must hold responsible, then props to the laws of the universe for that one.
On their behalf, and as one of their progeny, I think you.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:57 am
by Flannel Jesus
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:52 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:43 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:39 am
But Flannel...I was never not going to make that metaphor and then make it a mixed metaphor by throwing in Apocalypse Now. You're not suggesting that I be held responsible for making this metaphor?
If it's the laws of the universe that I must hold responsible, then props to the laws of the universe for that one.
On their behalf, and as one of their progeny, I think you.
i think you too
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:14 am
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:57 am
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:52 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 10:43 am
If it's the laws of the universe that I must hold responsible, then props to the laws of the universe for that one.
On their behalf, and as one of their progeny, I think you.
i think you too
Oh, I wish I'd done that intentionally.
That dang Big Bang and its effects.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:33 am
by phyllo
human autonomy
Depends on what one means by "autonomy".
For Kant, a person is autonomous only if his choices and actions are unaffected by factors that are external, or inessential, to himself.
According to the Millian view of autonomy, a person is autonomous to the extent that he directs his actions in accordance with his own values, desires, and inclinations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/autonomy
So a compatibilist is autonomous if he uses the Mill definition and not autonomous if he uses the Kant definition.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:36 pm
by Iwannaplato
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:33 am
human autonomy
Depends on what one means by "autonomy".
For Kant, a person is autonomous only if his choices and actions are unaffected by factors that are external, or inessential, to himself.
According to the Millian view of autonomy, a person is autonomous to the extent that he directs his actions in accordance with his own values, desires, and inclinations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/autonomy
So a compatibilist is autonomous if he uses the Mill definition and not autonomous if he uses the Kant definition.
Even Kant's definition leaves room for compatibilism. IOW if this person is not controlled by outside forces, but rather would be driven by his desires, goals, etc. It's still (potentially) compatibilism, just that where the bulk of the causes are coming from makes the difference. The word 'inessential' also leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
I just tried to find out a bit more about Kant's view and it is very tricky in relation to free will and determinism.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 2:20 pm
by Flannel Jesus
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:36 pm
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 11:33 am
human autonomy
Depends on what one means by "autonomy".
For Kant, a person is autonomous only if his choices and actions are unaffected by factors that are external, or inessential, to himself.
According to the Millian view of autonomy, a person is autonomous to the extent that he directs his actions in accordance with his own values, desires, and inclinations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/autonomy
So a compatibilist is autonomous if he uses the Mill definition and not autonomous if he uses the Kant definition.
Even Kant's definition leaves room for compatibilism. IOW if this person is not controlled by outside forces, but rather would be driven by his desires, goals, etc. It's still (potentially) compatibilism, just that where the bulk of the causes are coming from makes the difference. The word 'inessential' also leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
I just tried to find out a bit more about Kant's view and it is very tricky in relation to free will and determinism.
"inessential to oneself" is probably an unquantifiable abstraction, I think you're right that it's tricky. One philosopher may decide certain things that go into a decision are essential to that person, while another philosopher may decide they're inessential, and I doubt there's some rigorous criteria to settle the difference.
So you can bend that kantian freedom however you like, it seems.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 2:34 pm
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 2:20 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:36 pm
Even Kant's definition leaves room for compatibilism. IOW if this person is not controlled by outside forces, but rather would be driven by his desires, goals, etc. It's still (potentially) compatibilism, just that where the bulk of the causes are coming from makes the difference. The word 'inessential' also leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
I just tried to find out a bit more about Kant's view and it is very tricky in relation to free will and determinism.
"inessential to oneself" is probably an unquantifiable abstraction, I think you're right that it's tricky. One philosopher may decide certain things that go into a decision are essential to that person, while another philosopher may decide they're inessential, and I doubt there's some rigorous criteria to settle the difference.
So you can bend that kantian freedom however you like, it seems.
It even parallels legal conceptions of responsibility. Someone whose breaks go out because of manufacturer mistakes is not held responsible for the crash. Someone who chooses or 'chooses' to go over the speed limit with his friends and race is considered responsible.
These aren't necessarily determinations that the latter incident was a free will incident in an ontological sense that no inevitable causes were involved, but still they assign responsibility - probably not really caring one way or the other if this means they are taking a stand on determinism.
In the practical sense, I think people are looking at 'would this be repeated' though not necessarily with great consistency.
The person who bought a car in good faith and the brakes failed is likely not a threat.
The person who risks other people's lives for fun we have reasons to consider a threat.
The consequences are tied to essential values in one instance - essential, at that time, at least.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:00 pm
by Flannel Jesus
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 2:34 pmIt even parallels legal conceptions of responsibility. Someone whose breaks go out because of manufacturer mistakes is not held responsible for the crash. Someone who chooses or 'chooses' to go over the speed limit with his friends and race is considered responsible.
These aren't necessarily determinations that the latter incident was a free will incident in an ontological sense that no inevitable causes were involved, but still they assign responsibility - probably not really caring one way or the other if this means they are taking a stand on determinism.
In the practical sense, I think people are looking at 'would this be repeated' though not necessarily with great consistency.
The person who bought a car in good faith and the brakes failed is likely not a threat.
The person who risks other people's lives for fun we have reasons to consider a threat.
The consequences are tied to essential values in one instance - essential, at that time, at least.
Right, or in other words, one willfully put other people in danger, and for the other one, the danger was through no will of the driver.
Or, I kinda like to take the word 'will' out of it and ask, what kind of decision making process did each of these people make? And do we want to reward or punish (or neither) that decision making process? One persons decision making process we can analytically determine will reliably put other people in danger, but the other persons decision making process will not, and the danger was just by pure chance this time, and we don't want to punish people for being unlucky.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:53 pm
by Iwannaplato
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2024 3:00 pm
Right, or in other words, one willfully put other people in danger, and for the other one, the danger was through no will of the driver.
Or, I kinda like to take the word 'will' out of it and ask, what kind of decision making process did each of these people make? And do we want to reward or punish (or neither) that decision making process? One persons decision making process we can analytically determine will reliably put other people in danger, but the other persons decision making process will not, and the danger was just by pure chance this time, and we don't want to punish people for being unlucky.
Unlucky being a judgment from the perspective of entities (human beings) who cannot calculate all the consequences.
And yes. Where do we as a society want to intervene and via giving the person unpleasant experiences, restricted movement and rights, and separation from society training that prevents the same actions
+
this our intervention is public knowledge - and so are the laws - so others who might chose the act, are more likely not to choose that act.
And given our values our choice to hold one of the people responsible and the other not is also inevitably caused by gurglings in the Big Bang.
And sure, other decisions might be less easy to categorize in terms of responsibility and even in terms of what intervention would be good, but there nothing about compatibilism that prevents making this kind of decision.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2024 4:46 pm
by phyllo
Autonomy or no autonomy, I don't know of too many free-willers, determinists or compatibilists who would not do anything about people who "behave badly".
People are only "not morally responsible" in the abstract clouds.