Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:46 pm

Don't quote me. I would prefer not to read anything you write, and I'm not your audience anyway.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:40 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:29 pm
Is compatibilism a position in the philosophical free will debate?

The way you, personally, are choosing to use the word "philosophical" is probably not how many other people would use that word. It seems on the surface like when you say "philosophical free will" you literally just mean "libertarian free will". That's obviously not what compatibilists mean, and many compatibilist conceptions of free will are actually going to be a lot closer to what you mean when you say "legal free will". (If you read iwannaplatos recent posts, I think there's clear signs of this there)

But most compatibilists don't think that conception is not "philosophical", that's just how you personally choose to word it.

This is from what you yourself linked

What Do Philosophers Believe?
7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

YOU CAN'T HAVE FREE WILL AND NO FREE WILL AT THE SAME TIME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS?

See, how much 'these people' would fight and argue AGAINST 'each other', and, laughingly, over what 'others' are meant to say, and, literally, mean?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:46 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:43 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:40 pm
This is from what you yourself linked

What Do Philosophers Believe?
7. Free will: compatibilism 59.1%; libertarianism 13.7%; no free will 12.2%; other 14.9%.

YOU CAN'T HAVE FREE WILL AND NO FREE WILL AT THE SAME TIME. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS?

I don't see how that text, from what I linked, is a response to anything I wrote above. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. You posted a stat that 59% of professional philosophers are compatibilists - yes, so what point are you making?

Never mind then. You don't know what a contradiction is. (law of noncontradiction) You don't follow the same basic laws of thought which I follow.

Actually, It could be said, and pointed out, that you are both following the very basic Wrong thought of CONTRADICTION, itself.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:50 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:46 pm Never mind then. You don't know what a contradiction is. (law of noncontradiction) You don't follow the same basic laws of thought which I follow.

You yourself implied that there are conceptions of free will that are compatible with determinism. I agree, but when I say it you say I'm contradicting myself. I definitely think you could do more to clarify your thoughts.

Even 'we' AGREE that both 'free will' and 'determinsm' exist, 'these people' will, still, fight and argue over 'things' that are IMPOSSIBLE to even exist here. While 'trying to' say and claim that 'the other', or 'others', are saying 'this' or 'that', and/or meaning 'this' or 'that'.

LOL Although I have, already, provided an irrefutable example of how 'free will' and 'determinism' both, absolutely, exist, and of which I have the proof that backs up and supports, absolutely, what I have said and claimed, 'these people' would, still, prefer to ignore 'this', absolutely, and just keep fighting and arguing with, and against, each other, instead.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:54 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:50 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:46 pm Never mind then. You don't know what a contradiction is. (law of noncontradiction) You don't follow the same basic laws of thought which I follow.

You yourself implied that there are conceptions of free will that are compatible with determinism. I agree, but when I say it you say I'm contradicting myself. I definitely think you could do more to clarify your thoughts.

I already excessively clarified it,

LOL When you 'tried to' 'clarify' you only made 'more contradictions'.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:54 pm plus it's the most common objection to compatibilism anyway, plus it's obvious. Come back when you understood why compatibilism shouldn't even exist as an option in the philosophical free will vs determinism debate.

LOL 'These one', obviously, still, have not yet come to an agreement on what the words here could actually mean, which would actual work, and which would actually fit together, let alone fit together perfectly.

But, they will, still, keep fighting and arguing AGAINST 'each other', anyway.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:54 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:13 am

You gave some pretty fulfilling answers, so I'm struggling to come up with follow up questions. Hmmmm.

Wish I could put myself in the shoes of someone like biggy so I could try to draw out from you the clarity they think they're missing. Obviously we can't trust him to do that, he's probably just going to call you a stooge or tell you to tell that to Mary, or whatever other unproductive things...

Another example of the BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID, leading the BLIND, DEAF, and STUPID.

Was I the target audience of this post?

Why would you presume or believe that you were not?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:13 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:12 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:57 am

What if someone had a little bit of libertarian free will, but also were a little bit subject to determining factors, external (and internal) causes?

Once more, these ones use words in a way that is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

And, worse still, they would continue on responding.

There was no wonder why these people, back then, were 'discussing' the same things for millennia, and not getting absolutely anywhere.

Don't quote me anymore please

Why not?

Are you afraid or scared of some thing I might say and write in response?

Or, is this some other reason why you do not want me to quote you?

Also, have you considered not writing any thing here if you do not want me, or another, to quote you, here?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:27 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 1:22 pm

So there's the big mystery. You're saying we have free will in a sense, and then you call that sense "pure sophistry". You talk like it's simple, "what's the big mystery", but your very own take is far from simple. You call your own take sophistry. Obviously something needs unpacking.

What needs 'unpacking' here is absolutely EVERY claim that it is 'trying to' make here.

But, unfortunately, it is not able to do this. Well not successfully anyway.

Don't quote me ever again please.

Why in a public forum do you not want another to quote you?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:46 pm

Don't quote me. I would prefer not to read anything you write, and I'm not your audience anyway.

1. you do not have to read any thing just because some thing has been quoted.

2. Why do you believe that you are not my audience, anyway?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:47 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:46 pm

Don't quote me. I would prefer not to read anything you write, and I'm not your audience anyway.

1. you do not have to read any thing just because some thing has been quoted.

2. Why do you believe that you are not my audience, anyway?

Don't quote me. I don't want you to speak to me anymore, especially with your habit of calling people "it". You disgust me. Don't quote me.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:03 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:02 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:47 pm

Don't quote me. I would prefer not to read anything you write, and I'm not your audience anyway.

1. you do not have to read any thing just because some thing has been quoted.

2. Why do you believe that you are not my audience, anyway?

Don't quote me. I don't want you to speak to me anymore, especially with your habit of calling people "it". You disgust me. Don't quote me.

Do not say and write any thing here, then 'I' will not quote 'you'.

Until then 'you' are speaking, and writing, in a public forum, and a 'philosophy forum' at that, so I can, and will, quote 'the words' under the name and label "flannel jesus" as I so wish to.

'you' could also, by the way, just say and write things that are True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct only, and then there will be less times that I will want to quote you. But, I will, still, quote you when I want to.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:20 pm
'you' could also, by the way, just say and write things that are True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct only, and then there will be less times that I will want to quote you. But, I will, still, quote you when I want to.

You have the intellect of an actual infant, to write something like this. No, people can't just say and write things that are true and correct, for one clear and obvious reason that anybody past their toddler years understands - people genuinely believe things that aren't always true and correct. So if you're going to insist on quoting me still, when I've asked you not to, please at least learn how to think beyond toddler level intelligence.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm

He hasn't shown any interest in respecting this kind of request.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:01 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:31 pm

He hasn't shown any interest in respecting this kind of request.

Why don't you only post the things I think and believe? Why are you posting the things you think and believe?! The horror!

It's like he lacks object permanence or something.

I hope Rick is at least getting paid a decent amount for letting Age post here.