Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 1:53 pmEverybody chooses.

Yes, becuz every one is a libertarian free will.

If libertarianism is true then why are there necessitarians?

Some folks look to abdicate responsibility. It's not my fault, it's just cause & effect is at the root of necessitarianism.

Can you choose to do nothing about it?

Can I? Sure. Will I? No.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:20 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 1:53 pmEverybody chooses.

Yes, becuz every one is a libertarian free will.

Sure, that's what liberatrians say.
Necessitarians say "everybody chooses because nature made you do it."

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:20 pm Some folks look to abdicate responsibility.

And some folk simply can't choose to abdicate responsibility even if they tried. Nature programmed them that way

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:20 pm

Can you choose to do nothing about it?

Can I? Sure. Will I? No.

So you can't choose to abdicate responsibility?

Awkward... Are you wired that way or something?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:42 pmNecessitarians say "everybody chooses because nature made you do it."

No, they say every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

So you can't choose to abdicate responsibility?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:54 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:42 pmNecessitarians say "everybody chooses because nature made you do it."

No, they say every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Oh, OK. My bad. Let me see if I understand....

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 2:54 pm

So you can't choose to abdicate responsibility?

Your inability to abdicate responsibility is the the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:17 pm Your inability to abdicate responsibility is the the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:20 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:17 pm Your inability to abdicate responsibility is the the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

You say you can do it, but you won't do it.

That's exactly the same as you can't do it.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:22 pmYou say you can do it, but you won't do it.

That's exactly the same as you can't do it.

Nope.

Compelled not to and chooses not to may net the same result, but the start is entirely different (and it's the start that's on the table in this thread).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:26 pm Compelled not to and chooses not to may net the same result, but the start is entirely different (and it's the start that on the table in this thread).

Different how?

Just because you are using different words it doesn't mean you are doing anything different in practice.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:26 pm Compelled not to and chooses not to may net the same result, but the start is entirely different (and it's the start that on the table in this thread).

Different how?

You see no difference between compelled not to and chooses not to?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:31 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 3:26 pm Compelled not to and chooses not to may net the same result, but the start is entirely different (and it's the start that on the table in this thread).

Different how?

You see no difference between compelled not to and chooses not to?

Of course I see a difference. You are using different a language to speak about yourself.

The question is whether you believe that changing the language you use to speak about youtself changes what's true about you.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:53 pm

Compelled not to is a placeholder for a particular state of affairs. Chooses not to is a placeholder for another particular state of affairs. I'm talkin' about two different states of affairs and you're talkin' about placeholders.

We're not gettin' anywhere.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:59 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 4:53 pm

Compelled not to is a placeholder for a particular state of affairs. Chooses not to is a placeholder for another particular state of affairs. I'm talkin' about two different states of affairs and you're talkin' about placeholders.

We're not gettin' anywhere.

We aren't getting anywhere because your confusuion runs deep.

Compelled not to and Choses not to are two different descriptions for one and the same state of affairs!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 5:20 pmCompelled not to and Choses not to are two different descriptions for one and the same state of affairs!

Not even if one focuses solely on placeholders is that true.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 5:38 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 5:20 pmCompelled not to and Choses not to are two different descriptions for one and the same state of affairs!

Not even if one focuses solely on placeholders is that true.

Good thing I am not focusing on the placeholders then?
I am focusing on the function of the language being used.

Both serve the exact same function: to describe the way decision-making works.

So we have two different descriptions of decision-making. This is a fact. Obviously.

But which description is true?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 5:51 pm

If you're...

...focusing on the function of the language being used.

then you are indeed focusing on the placeholders.

'nuff said.