Philosophy Now Forum

We can use your take too. Well since now words can mean anyth fshlfj asdfjsd fgsdlkfj sdjklfjsdlkf sdljflsdjf.

Nobody has the free-will that you wrote about.

Moving on.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:43 pm

We can use your take too. Well since now words can mean anyth fshlfj asdfjsd fgsdlkfj sdjklfjsdlkf sdljflsdjf.

Nobody has the free-will that you wrote about.

Moving on.

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Even the ancient Greeks had different ideas about free-will.

So no, it's not the only traditional meaning of free-will.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:49 pm

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Even the ancient Greeks had different ideas about free-will.

So no, it's not the only traditional meaning of free-will.

True. I think it's weird how dogmatic people are that free will can only and has only ever meant libertarian free will, history just does not bear that out.

Not to mention the fact that libertarian free will isn't one definition, it's a class of definitions that includes many.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:49 pm

Maybe, maybe not. Point is this is the traditional meaning of 'free will'.

Even the ancient Greeks had different ideas about free-will.

So no, it's not the only traditional meaning of free-will.

The Greek one went out of use.

The Greek one went out of use.

Then what does "traditional" mean?

It's a magic word that means whatever I want it to mean to suit my point

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:53 pm

The Greek one went out of use.

Then what does "traditional" mean?

It means that this is what "free will" meant for centuries to most people, whether you two miserable fucks like it or not.

It means that this is what "free will" meant for centuries to most people, whether you two miserable fucks like it or not.

The Stoics were compatibilists.

What they meant by free-will is what I think free-will means today.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:05 pm

It means that this is what "free will" meant for centuries to most people, whether you two miserable fucks like it or not.

The Stoics were compatibilists.

What they meant by free-will is what I think free-will means today.

And why do you think that this is what 'free will' means today, when it's well-known that it doesn't?

And why do you think that this is what 'free will' means today, when it's well-known that it doesn't?

Today it means some dumb shit that doesn't' make any sense.

The ancient Greeks understood the problems and addressed them .

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:18 pm

And why do you think that this is what 'free will' means today, when it's well-known that it doesn't?

Today it means some dumb shit that doesn't' make any sense.

The ancient Greeks understood the problems and addressed them .

Doesn't matter, it's what the expression means today anyway.

Doesn't matter, it's what the expression means today anyway.

The sacred expression.

There is no possibility of change.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:24 am

...my point remains: A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

Even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

You keep repeating this, Henry, but I'm not sure you know what it means. All rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people. What else can they possibly be? The right to life doesn't protect one from cancer or earthquakes. Instead, it confers an obligation on other people not to kill anyone. The right to liberty confers an obligation not to enslave of imprison other people.

Property is problematic. First of all, concepts of property differ from culture to culture. The Divine Right of Kings suggested that the entire country was the king's property, which he doled out to others at his whim. IN most hunting and gathering societies there are few things that can be considered "private property". An animal killed by a hunter is not his property; custom and norms demand that shall be shared among the group. In our society, custom, norms and laws mandate that some portion of one's earnings be shared among the group (taxes). Property -- it seems -- cannot thus be a "natural right". Instead, it is a fiat (legal or customary) right.

IN addition, the obligations involved in rights conflict with each other. Property rights do absolutely nothing EXCEPT limit the liberty of those who respect them. If someone owns land, he can legally (and maybe morally) prevent other people from having the liberty to walk across it. If you shoot the six-year-old who picks up your dropped penny, you are asserting your right to property while violating his right to life and liberty.

In addition, neither you nor anyone else sees life, liberty and property as "absolute moral claims". Most of us believe in imprisoning criminals, defending our family and country, and (as mentioned above) limiting liberty by respecting legal property rights. So the moral claims inherent in these rights are not "absolute" they are limited by other, more important moral claims, like justice. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum. (Let justice be done though the heavens fall)

IN terms of the general discussion of compatibilism, I haven't read most of this long thread, so I may be repeating things. But I don't see how determinism and free will are incompatible. "Free" doesn't generally mean "utterly unlimited". We can be "free" without being able to fly by flapping our arms. Instead, it means unconstrained by outside forces. Legally, if someone is forced at gun point to participate in a crime, he has not "freely" chosen to do so. However, if his neurons made him do it, he has freely chosen.

This seems obvious for two reasons: First, we can say someone "freely chose" to do something in the past tense. Of course he can, at this point, do nothing else. But the phrase remains meaningful.

Second, to a card player, there is 1/52 chance that he will be dealt the Ace of Spades after a fair shuffle. Of course on need not believe in determinism to know that after the shuffle the order of cards in the deck is predetermined. There is either a 0% chance of the Ace being dealt, or a 100% chance. Nonetheless, the gambler is reasonable in ignoring any determination of which he is unaware. The same, I'd suggest, is true for the rest of life.

dee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:47 am

dum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:52 am