Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:37 pm People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:52 amSo, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:37 pmErr no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

On the other hand, what if every single academic philosopher...not to mention all of us here...went into philosophy because they/we were never able not to? What if some suck at philosophy while others excel at it because that's just how nature programed their brains. Same with "going into things".

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amThe average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

Really, in my view, you assert this as though it...settled something? As though you could come back tomorrow and confirm empirically that this is the way the world really was. Period. Exclamation mark.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amThe only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Not entirely sure what you are arguing here, but the part about definitions is always going to be problematic. There are those who argue it's important here to first go up into the technical clouds and define determinism and compatibilism correctly. As though this too can't in turn be fated or destined in the only possible reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amNow outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

There may be different concepts precisely because there can be.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:50 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:45 pm

you said you would KILL another human being if they just 'tried to' take off with a toothpick (of all things).

If you mean I'll defend my property, then: yeah, of course.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one, still, BELIEVE ABSOLUTELY that some of 'the things', in Life, are 'its things'.

This here is another example of just how slow, and far behind, adult human beings, really, were back when this was being written.

And, this is without even mentioning and pointing out, again, just how Truly CONTRADICTORY and HYPOCRITICAL it is to BELIEVE that "oneself" can override the 'absolute claim' and 'natural right' of another. Which is, EXACTLY, why "henry quirk" BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that it can do and, laughingly, even has some sort of 'right' to do.

Again, "henry quirk", ACTUALLY, BELIEVES that it can go around SHOOTING human beings DEAD, in the MOST ABSURD ATTEMPT at 'justification' of, ' i am defending "my stuff" '.

And, what makes all of this even MORE RIDICULOUS and LUDICROUS, and LAUGHABLE, is that "henry quirk" will 'TRY TO' claim that it is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE and ALL RIGHT for it to go around KILLING HUMAN BEINGS if they just 'try to' take off with splinters and/or moldy pieces of bread, if "henry quirk" has just made the first claim of 'this is mine'.

The ABSOLUTE lack of maturity and lack of awareness here, would be UNBELIEVABLE, that is if "henry quirk" were not actually saying, and trying to defend, these actual things here.

If it was not for "henry quirk's" actual own words here, for all to 'look at' and 'see', then there people of the future would not believe just how Truly BACKWARDS individual adults of the human species had actually become.

Although, and obviously, a quick glance at the 'current' news items, in the days when this is being written, would SHOW and REVEAL just how DIRE things really had become.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:50 pm
If you mean I'll defend my property, then: yeah, of course.

In other words, OF COURSE "henry quirk" would SHOOT and KILL you human beings DEAD, even if you were only just attempting to use, or take off, with "henry quirk's" toothpicks or moldy pieces of breads.

Remember, no matter what it is that "henry quirk" believes is "his" 'henry quirk" will KILL 'you' over 'it'.

Obviously, 'your life', and 'your natural right to your own life', has absolutely no significance, at all, to "henry quirk" nor over what "henry quirk" claims is "his stuff".

Again, to just make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR "henry quirk" will SHOOT 'you' DEAD over just a toothpick and/or just a moldy piece of bread, only.

And, the SCARIEST part of this is "henry quirk" actually believes that it has some or of (God-given) 'right' to do so.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:50 pm
04EC41E3-7AC5-439B-A556-A0C362147FD0.jpeg

Just out curiosity, do you know why in three out of the four boxes the shape, or look, of the faces/heads are different from the other one, and/or why in those three boxes it is shaded, or darkened, while the other one is whitened?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:44 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 6:55 am Note to others:

A little help here please. Either for him or, sure, for me. What did I do above "precisely" as he said? Pertaining to Mary and Jane.

Is there or is there not a distinction being made between is and ought by the preponderance of men and women around the globe?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:57 am Of course, those who hold with Hume. Nowhere, nowhere did I argue that people dont' make the distinction.

Though nowhere, nowhere have you been able to demonstrate how you freely opted to argue that. Not that I'm aware of. Instead here, by and large, it's arguments all the way down. Including my own.

Um, hello. Are you confusing me with someone who is a Libertaran free will advocate.

No, I'm suggesting the possibility that how you are compelled by your brain to react to me compelled by my brain to react to you "here and now" may or may not be such that the words we use to encompass each other here are beyond our control.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:44 amSeriously, responding to you is a constant process of saying 'he never said that' 'she isn't saying that', 'I never said that,' you response doesn't fit what you quoted, but it appears to be a responese to what to what you quoted,' and so on.

Always the assumption on your part that if I don't agree with you regarding what particular authors or posters here are saying, I'm missing their point.

Really, I get that part. What you don't seem to be clear regarding, in my view, is how questions revolving around meaning and morality and metaphysics have precipitated answers that are all up and down the moral, political and metaphysical spectrum. Again, going all the way back to the pre-Socratics.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:57 amI have presented an argument for that three or four times. I have pointed out that often in the context of determinism, when you are thinking about that and whether we can know things, you say we may be compelled to believe that. I have then gone on to explain that that is true regarding all knowledge, any knowledge.

Again, so you say. Please link me to what you construe to be your best argument. The one that avoids abortion altogether.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:44 amIn both ILP and here, as greenfuse and as Iwannaplato, I not only presented arguments and then commented on your lack of response. I'm not your parent.

Again:

Please link me to what you construe to be your best argument. The one that avoids abortion altogether.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 7:57 amWhen your focus is somewhere else on the issue, you talk about scientific facts and wish scientists would come here and they would give real answers and possibly then we would know, forgetting what you have said about us being compelled to believe things, which would include scientists and us listening to them.

Now it's your turn. Note where I have ever argued that scientists are any different from the rest of us? They may or may not possess some measure of autonomy. Instead, I do note how there may come a day when scientists and philosophers are able to establish that we do have free will. But how on Earth would we know beyond a doubt that this too is just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

The more mere mortals in a No God world attempt to think this through, the more surreal it seems to become.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:44 amThat's not what I said. I never said you said that. It's that you think scientists coming here and weighing in would potentially give answers, whereas our arguments and thoughts can't.

No, click, my point always revolves around the suggestion that brain scientists and philosophers must eventually come together. And then in regard to particular contexts like Mary and Jane, coordinate their efforts such that working together they might resolve this most vexing of antinomies.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:44 amThat the experts coudl demonstrate this. You draw this distinction about is and out in arguments about whether objective morals are possible. That scientist can demonstrate facts, but how do we demonstrate objective morals? You do this around determinism and free will. PHilosophy cannot resolve this but perhaps neuroscientist can come and present us with facts and research.

"Where's the beef?" The part where either in a world or words or as a result of actual experiments with the brain, science and philosophy succeed in moving us closer to a final solution.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:44 amDo you see? It's not that you directly said they are not compelled but you regularly contrast is with ought assertions and what we can work out in philosophical discusion vs. scientific research and what would a scientigst might be able to demonstrate.

That's because human autonomy is particularly important in the is/ought world. After all, without it all of our moral philosophies here would be inherently/necessarily interchangeable. What difference does it make "for all practical purposes" what we believe, what we do, if it is all intrinsically part of nature's own agenda.

See how it works? He said that so it must be true. Instead, in my view, what is particularly problematic regarding henry's own absolute and natural moral claims, is that he blinks.

He just doesn't trust himself to get it right, so he posits a God, the God that installed -- in his soul? -- "the dictates of Reason and Nature". Only this God split the scene satisfied that those like henry would win over all the rest of us. So, how's he doing so far?

henry snippet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:44 pm it's true becuz it's true. But, okay, let's say natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? Can't see how recognizing and respecting another's claim on his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

As long as you and your ilk get to decide what these complex human interactions mean, good and bad themselves are no less subjective prejudices on your and their part.

henry snippet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:44 pm That fiction, if it is fiction, is a damned sight better than living as though the world were empty and rudderless.

Okay, as long as you don't lose sight of the fact almost everyone of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...will be claiming much the same thing about their own One True Path.

The fact that there are so many of these at times hopelessly conflicting dogmas speaks volumes to me regarding the "psychology of objectivism". It's not what the FFOs here believe that matters nearly as much as that they do believe there is something "out there" that they can anchor the Real Me to.

henry snippet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 1:44 pm I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.

Of course that changes everything. Now all we need is a Magical Wardrobe.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:37 pm People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:52 amSo, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:37 pmErr no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

On the other hand, what if every single academic philosopher...not to mention all of us here...went into philosophy because they/we were never able not to? What if some suck at philosophy while others excel at it because that's just how nature programed their brains. Same with "going into things".

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amThe average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

Really, in my view, you assert this as though it...settled something? As though you could come back tomorrow and confirm empirically that this is the way the world really was. Period. Exclamation mark.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amThe only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Not entirely sure what you are arguing here, but the part about definitions is always going to be problematic. There are those who argue it's important here to first go up into the technical clouds and define determinism and compatibilism correctly. As though this too can't in turn be fated or destined in the only possible reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amNow outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

There may be different concepts precisely because there can be.

I don't know what you're on about, but you're not replying to my comment. Read it again, it's easy to understand.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:32 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:58 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:37 pm People who think that determinism isn't compatible with (psychological, legal, everyday) responsibility, simply don't understand determinism. We don't have free will in the philosophical sense, but most people have more than enough free will in the psychological, legal, everyday sense.

What's the big mistery here?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 2:52 amSo, what are you suggesting then...that the preponderance of philosophers and scientists are in fact able to demonstrate that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist in regard to human interactions that come into conflict.

Links please.

"Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable." wiki

Theoretically anyway.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 12:37 pmErr no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

On the other hand, what if every single academic philosopher...not to mention all of us here...went into philosophy because they/we were never able not to? What if some suck at philosophy while others excel at it because that's just how nature programed their brains. Same with "going into things".

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amThe average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

Really, in my view, you assert this as though it...settled something? As though you could come back tomorrow and confirm empirically that this is the way the world really was. Period. Exclamation mark.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amThe only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Not entirely sure what you are arguing here, but the part about definitions is always going to be problematic. There are those who argue it's important here to first go up into the technical clouds and define determinism and compatibilism correctly. As though this too can't in turn be fated or destined in the only possible reality.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 4:33 amNow outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

There may be different concepts precisely because there can be.

I don't know what you're on about, but you're not replying to my comment. Read it again, it's easy to understand.

Not to worry. It's common knowledge that I never really respond to anyone's comments here. I'm just not sure if I did or did not have the actual option to respond differently.

I might also point out, however, that you did not respond to the points I raised either.

For example:

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:32 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2024 11:58 pm





On the other hand, what if every single academic philosopher...not to mention all of us here...went into philosophy because they/we were never able not to? What if some suck at philosophy while others excel at it because that's just how nature programed their brains. Same with "going into things".



Really, in my view, you assert this as though it...settled something? As though you could come back tomorrow and confirm empirically that this is the way the world really was. Period. Exclamation mark.



Not entirely sure what you are arguing here, but the part about definitions is always going to be problematic. There are those who argue it's important here to first go up into the technical clouds and define determinism and compatibilism correctly. As though this too can't in turn be fated or destined in the only possible reality.



Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

There may be different concepts precisely because there can be.

I don't know what you're on about, but you're not replying to my comment. Read it again, it's easy to understand.

Not to worry. It's common knowledge that I never really respond to anyone's comments here. I'm just not sure if I did or did not have the actual option to respond differently.

I might also point out, however, that you did not respond to the points I raised either.

For example:

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

That's also no reply to my comment. Demonstrate that you are capable of reading and cognizing my comment and of formulating a relevant and coherent response. Don't just change the topic and then try to guilt trip me.

Err no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

The average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

The only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Now outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:50 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:43 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 2:32 am
I don't know what you're on about, but you're not replying to my comment. Read it again, it's easy to understand.

Not to worry. It's common knowledge that I never really respond to anyone's comments here. I'm just not sure if I did or did not have the actual option to respond differently.

I might also point out, however, that you did not respond to the points I raised either.

For example:

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

That's also no reply to my comment. Demonstrate that you are capable of reading and cognizing my comment and of formulating a relevant and coherent response. Don't just change the topic and then try to guilt trip me.

Err no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

The average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

The only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Now outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Note to iwannaplato:

Did you put him up to this??!!!



I'll try one more time...


...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:50 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:43 am

Not to worry. It's common knowledge that I never really respond to anyone's comments here. I'm just not sure if I did or did not have the actual option to respond differently.

I might also point out, however, that you did not respond to the points I raised either.

For example:

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

That's also no reply to my comment. Demonstrate that you are capable of reading and cognizing my comment and of formulating a relevant and coherent response. Don't just change the topic and then try to guilt trip me.

Err no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

The average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

The only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Now outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Note to iwannaplato:

Did you put him up to this??!!!

No he didn't. Human communication works by actually addressing what the other one said, something you'll have to learn one day.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:10 am Note to iwannaplato:

Did you put him up to this??!!!

What would be the need?
I'm also not responsible for how people reacted to you going back to 2005....

Biggier,
You didn't answer my question: why does Cioran collapse before what Sagan celebrates? Are you able to attempt a substantive answer, or should I expect some typically vacuous intellectual sludge about 'circumstantial parameters' or the 'contingency of Dasein'?

I do understand your position: you're not responsible for reacting to decades of the same kind of criticism from a wide range of people with a wide range of philosophical positions as if it was a conspiracy, because determinism compels you to believe it is.

Please know: I don't consider you a responsible person. Neither in the moral sense nor in the sense of being able to respond.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:50 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:43 am

Not to worry. It's common knowledge that I never really respond to anyone's comments here. I'm just not sure if I did or did not have the actual option to respond differently.

I might also point out, however, that you did not respond to the points I raised either.

For example:

Okay, click, in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

That's also no reply to my comment. Demonstrate that you are capable of reading and cognizing my comment and of formulating a relevant and coherent response. Don't just change the topic and then try to guilt trip me.

Err no. The majority of academic philosophers go into philosophy because they aren't good at anything more productive. And when they even suck at philosophy, they will usually go into topics like ethics, free will, religion.

The average philosopher in the topic of free will is thus fairly braindead, but he wants to make his mark anyway and also needs to earn a living, so he will then usually try to do the awesome feat of unifying free will and determinism, and call it compatibilism. So 60% of philosophers subscribe to compatibilism.

The only problem is that in the philosophical debate between free will and determinism, these are by definition mutually exclusive, so compatibilism is a position that can't logically exist. 60% of philosophers subscribe to a position that doesn't exist. This is pretty sad imo. Then they justify it by redefining free will and determinism, which is sophistry because it's no longer about the original core issue.

Now outside the philosophical free will vs determinism debate, we can and should use other meanings of free will. That's why I wrote that in the psychological/legal/everyday etc. sense we have more than enough free will. There is nothing difficult about this topic if we don't keep conflating different concepts with the same name.

Note to iwannaplato:

Did you put him up to this??!!!



I'll try one more time...


...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

The irrefutable answer is, again, also extremely simple and easy to ascertain, understand, and know.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:18 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:10 am

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:50 am
That's also no reply to my comment. Demonstrate that you are capable of reading and cognizing my comment and of formulating a relevant and coherent response. Don't just change the topic and then try to guilt trip me.

Note to iwannaplato:

Did you put him up to this??!!!

No he didn't. Human communication works by actually addressing what the other one said, something you'll have to learn one day.

LOL This coming from one who "itself" does not actually address what another one says.

But, maybe this is just because it is some thing that it has not, yet, learned.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:10 am I'll try one more time...


...in regard to your interactions with others in which conflicts revolving around value judgments unfolded, note how the above is applicable to your own behaviors. What parts are beyond your control and what parts are not.

Try what one more time? Why is it in blue and large letters? I wasn't talking about specific interactions, wasn't talking about conflicts, wasn't talking about value judgments, wasn't talking about specific behaviours. I wasn't talking about myself, nor intended to. I wasn't talking about control. I don't know how and why this was your response to my comments.

It escapes me in particular what value judgments have to do with my objection to compatibilism. What purpose does it serve to bring in the big topic of values, when it has so little relevance here?

It's like you don't know how to pay attention to what others are saying.