Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:42 pmI think part of the friction here is, you're assuming for some reason that I'm trying to prove it to you, when I haven't explicitly expressed an interest in trying to do that.

“Friction”? I’m not feeling any, up to now…

You're having a debate about if it's reasonable, but I've been clarifying the meaning of terms.

I’m simply asking you to justify the term. And I really can’t see how it can be “clarified” without any reference to how it’s even possible for something to be both strictly determined and also free.

Are you simply declining to answer? It seems to me that you’re trying to avoid a very simple, obvious and natural question…

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:50 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:42 pmI think part of the friction here is, you're assuming for some reason that I'm trying to prove it to you, when I haven't explicitly expressed an interest in trying to do that.

“Friction”? I’m not feeling any, up to now…

You're having a debate about if it's reasonable, but I've been clarifying the meaning of terms.

I’m simply asking you to justify the term. And I really can’t see how it can be “clarified” without any reference to how it’s even possible for something to be both strictly determined and also free.

Are you simply declining to answer? It seems to me that you’re trying to avoid a very simple, obvious and natural question…

What does "justify the term" mean?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:51 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:50 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:42 pmI think part of the friction here is, you're assuming for some reason that I'm trying to prove it to you, when I haven't explicitly expressed an interest in trying to do that.

“Friction”? I’m not feeling any, up to now…

You're having a debate about if it's reasonable, but I've been clarifying the meaning of terms.

I’m simply asking you to justify the term. And I really can’t see how it can be “clarified” without any reference to how it’s even possible for something to be both strictly determined and also free.

Are you simply declining to answer? It seems to me that you’re trying to avoid a very simple, obvious and natural question…

What does "justify the term" mean?

It means, “show that something is actually ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism.” All I see so far is the assertion that Determinism and free will can be made “compatible,” but no evidence that they can be reconciled at all.

But maybe you’ll address that…

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:04 pm It means, “show that something is actually ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism.”

You want me to convince you that they're actually compatible?

All I see so far is the assertion that Determinism and free will can be made “compatible,”

I personally have not asserted anything like that to you in this conversation.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:21 pmIf the deist god created by evolution, then the sudden jump from no soul to soul is strange.

*It is, yes. Mebbe proto-man simply wasn't a appropriate vessel and evolution made him appropriate. Man, as I see him, is spirit and substance, a blend of two very different things, each wholly dependent on the other. Man's evolution, then, prepared one for the other.

It would only "make sense" if the deist god created humans directly without evolution.

Well, that seems strange to me too.

*still makes sense to me

But animals often don't fight and they peacefully settle their disputes.

When they have to no cause to they don't, yes. When they do: look out! Man, on the other hand, often wars for no good reason at all.

Some higher order animals do. Chimps and dolphins come to mind. Most don't. And with chimps, dolphins, and others, the settling of dispute is always the product of dominance. This applies to man as well, but not always. Only man can choose to be merciful.

So I don't see anything particularly special or praiseworthy in humans.

I have no comment to make here, except that mystifies me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:04 pm It means, “show that something is actually ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism.”

You want me to convince you that they're actually compatible?

Yes. I see no possible way they are. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise, if you know something I haven’t heard from a Compatibilist before.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:13 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:04 pm It means, “show that something is actually ‘compatible’ in Compatibilism.”

You want me to convince you that they're actually compatible?

Yes. I see no possible way they are. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise, if you know something I haven’t heard from a Compatibilist before.

I don't think I've expressed an interest in doing that, I don't think I can do that, I don't think I would enjoy trying to do that, and I have no intention to try to do that.

I could explain to you maybe some of the thought processes that underpin why a lot of compatibilists think the way they do, but that's the best I can offer.

You've been writing to me for many posts now with this kind of unstated assumption that I'm supposed to prove something to you, when I haven't said anything to give the impression that's what I'm trying to do. That's the "friction" that I was sensitive to earlier, that you were apparently insensitive to. I noticed that undertone in the conversation. I'm not going to try to convince you of that, and you shouldn't silently assume that's my aim.

I have no comment to make here, except that mystifies me.

Are you aware of how many have been killed since let's say the year 1900?

How much destruction has been inflicted? How much suffering?

I'm reminded of a quote by a circus performer :
"The more that I am around people, the more I like horses."

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:08 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 7:21 pmIf the deist god created by evolution, then the sudden jump from no soul to soul is strange.

*It is, yes. Mebbe proto-man simply wasn't a appropriate vessel and evolution made him appropriate. Man, as I see him, is spirit and substance, a blend of two very different things, each wholly dependent on the other. Man's evolution, then, prepared one for the other.

It would only "make sense" if the deist god created humans directly without evolution.

Well, that seems strange to me too.

*still makes sense to me

But animals often don't fight and they peacefully settle their disputes.

When they have to cause to they don't, yes. When they do: look out!

Some higher order animals do. Chimps and dolphins come to mind.

Actually, chimp life is pretty bloody and cruel, especially if a chimp is caught by one troop while away from his own. They are much more violent than people who’ve only seen them in zoos or on TV can possibly imagine. Most of what they’ve seen is young chimps, under highly controlled conditions. In the wild, adult chimps are something quite different.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:13 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:07 pm

You want me to convince you that they're actually compatible?

Yes. I see no possible way they are. But I’m open to being convinced otherwise, if you know something I haven’t heard from a Compatibilist before.

I don't think I've expressed an interest in doing that, I don't think I can do that, I don't think I would enjoy trying to do that, and I have no intention to try to do that.

Why, if it can be done?

I don’t think it can. But I offer you the opportunity to do it, if I’m wrong about that.

But the truth, I think, is that it cannot. There’s no such coherent position as one in which determinism and free will are “compatible.” So I think the term is simply a misnomer, a bluff, an artificial compromise where none is even rationally possible.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:18 pm

Yes, human history is mostly brutality and atrocity. How remarkable that man slowly, with great effort, and despite on-going set backs -- continues to get better at being human. I credit the uneven and halting and sometimes forced recognition of each person's natural rights and personhood.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:24 pm

I think there's a huge intuitional gap between what's in your head and compatibilism, and the work it would take to cross that gap is humongous. Your approach to the conversation, where from the beginning you had a "prove it to me" attitude even without me saying anything remotely like "I think this is true and you should too" indicates that there's too much of an adversarial nature for you to even want to try to cross that gap.

I mean if I told you "compatibilism is correct and you should believe it" then I'd understand that tone from you, but I didn't say anything like that and so this whole vibe like you're entitled to me bending over backwards trying to prove something to you is just... not it for me.

If instead of you being entitled to a proof, it was more about curiosity, "I wonder why compatibilists think what they think", I could have worked with that, but that's not what's going on here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:21 pmActually, chimp life is pretty bloody and cruel, especially if a chimp is caught by one troop while away from his own.

Oh sure, yes. But within the troop disputes can settled thru, as I say, dominance (a kind of peaceful settlement).

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:24 pmWhy, if it can be done?

FJ sez what's compatible are free will and determinism. All he needs to do is define both. If he's right the compatibility should be obvious.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2024 8:24 pm

I think there's a huge intuitional gap between what's in your head and compatibilism,

Sorry…you’re just wrong. It was you who identified determinism and free will as the alleged “compatible” things. I’m just asking you to provide the evidence that that’s even possible. And your refusal to do so…well, that really says all we need to know.

I have yet to meet a Compatibilist who could defend his view on rational grounds. I offered you the chance to be the first. You’ve declined that opportunity. As to why, well, I guess we’ll just have to draw the obvious conclusion.

Now, as to your question WHY they believe something that’s so contradictory it cannot be rationally defended, that’s a psychological question, and not uninteresting. But it is ad hominem, and thus is unrelated to the question of whether or not their belief makes a drop of sense. There can be a lot of reasons why somebody embraces an indefensible belief: but none of the motive questions help make Compatibilism itself any more rational. To do that, they would have to defend it; and you have decided not to do that…for whatever motives you, yourself have. I think motive questions are much less important than coherence ones here.