Philosophy Now Forum

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:27 pm

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

The sacred expression.

There is no possibility of change.

There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:36 pm

dee wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:47 am

dum wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:52 am

B226CB39-697E-411C-9982-5DBBA7249D54.png

You have been in this forum for 16 years and you think that this is philosophy?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:17 pm

If "the applecart" is the Roman Empire, I don't think Jesus would have attempted such a monumental task.

Taking the Gospels as they were intended to be taken: Christ's task was substantially larger than takin' on the empire. He attempted to redeem a fallen world.

There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

Who says that your version of free-will is some sort of official, final, ultimate, absolute, approved free-will?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:40 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:27 pm

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

The sacred expression.

There is no possibility of change.

There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

Professional philosophers have already agreed that multiple conceptions of free will are viable philosophical topics. It's only the amateurs on philosophy forums who are the hold outs on agreeing to that.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:31 pmAll rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people.

Yeah, we, you and me, went around on this sometime back. We don't agree with each other. I prefer our friendly conversation about Lewis to a rehash guaranteed to leave us both with bad feelings.

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:41 pmyou think that this is philosophy?

Are you biggy's and age's defender?

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:44 pm

There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

Who says that your version of free-will is some sort of official, final, ultimate, absolute, approved free-will?

I'm a determinist genius

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:40 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:27 pm
The sacred expression.

There is no possibility of change.

There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

Professional philosophers have already agreed that multiple conceptions of free will are viable philosophical topics. It's only the amateurs on philosophy forums who are the hold outs on agreeing to that.

Funny coming from the guy who couldn't follow when I was talking about multiple conceptions.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:04 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:40 pm
There is, but people should agree on it first. Stop whining

Professional philosophers have already agreed that multiple conceptions of free will are viable philosophical topics. It's only the amateurs on philosophy forums who are the hold outs on agreeing to that.

Funny coming from the guy who couldn't follow when I was talking about multiple conceptions.

Is that an accurate depiction of events? I couldn't follow when you were talking about multiple conceptions? I don't think that's how I would describe anything that happened.

In any case, if agreeing on it first is all that's required, the philosophical community has already achieved that. They have agreed - compatibilist free will (regardless of it being true or false, or even coherent) is at the very least a philosophical topic worth writing and arguing about. It's a definition with a strong foothold in the philosophical community. Agreement is there.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:06 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:04 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:49 pm

Professional philosophers have already agreed that multiple conceptions of free will are viable philosophical topics. It's only the amateurs on philosophy forums who are the hold outs on agreeing to that.

Funny coming from the guy who couldn't follow when I was talking about multiple conceptions.

Is that an accurate depiction of events? I couldn't follow when you were talking about multiple conceptions? I don't think that's how I would describe anything that happened.

In any case, if agreeing on it first is all that's required, the philosophical community has already achieved that. They have agreed - compatibilist free will (regardless of it being true or false, or even coherent) is at the very least a philosophical topic worth writing and arguing about. It's a definition with a strong foothold in the philosophical community. Agreement is there.

Sure, as long as you call it a form of determinism.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:10 pm Sure, as long as you call it a form of determinism.

It's more of a form of free will, that's compatible with determinism. One can be a compatibilist and not be a determinist.

You have people who
1. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in free will (and not determinism)
2. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in determinism (and not free will)
3. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in neither
4. Think free will and determinism are compatible, and believe in both
5. Think free will and determinism are compatible, but believe in free will and not determinism

(and probably more options than that, but the majority of peoples positions are covered by that, apart from general agnosticism)

4 and 5 are compatibilism - you don't strictly have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist, you just have to think they're compatible.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:15 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:10 pm Sure, as long as you call it a form of determinism.

It's more of a form of free will, that's compatible with determinism. One can be a compatibilist and not be a determinist.

You have people who
1. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in free will (and not determinism)
2. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in determinism (and not free will)
3. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in neither
4. Think free will and determinism are compatible, and believe in both
5. Think free will and determinism are compatible, but believe in free will and not determinism

(and probably more options than that, but the majority of peoples positions are covered by that, apart from general agnosticism)

4 and 5 are compatibilism - you don't strictly have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist, you just have to think they're compatible.

Good, then at this point free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism mean whatever we want them to mean ie. they don't mean anything.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:31 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:15 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:10 pm Sure, as long as you call it a form of determinism.

It's more of a form of free will, that's compatible with determinism. One can be a compatibilist and not be a determinist.

You have people who
1. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in free will (and not determinism)
2. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in determinism (and not free will)
3. Think free will and determinism are incompatible, and believe in neither
4. Think free will and determinism are compatible, and believe in both
5. Think free will and determinism are compatible, but believe in free will and not determinism

(and probably more options than that, but the majority of peoples positions are covered by that, apart from general agnosticism)

4 and 5 are compatibilism - you don't strictly have to be a determinist to be a compatibilist, you just have to think they're compatible.

Good, then at this point free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism mean whatever we want them to mean ie. they don't mean anything.

"Then at this point" what do you mean? What specifically was said that means they don't mean anything?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:52 pm

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 4:31 pmAll rights are (and can be) nothing more or less than obligations on the part of other people.

Yeah, we, you and me, went around on this sometime back. We don't agree with each other. I prefer our friendly conversation about Lewis to a rehash guaranteed to leave us both with bad feelings.

Philosophy is not my favorite form of literature, but I was trying to return to the topic (I remember our discussion, but had forgotten it was with you). I looked at Lewis's "Abolition of Man". At the end of the essay, Lewis lists eight illustrations of natural law (the Tao) collected from a variety of cultures. They are:

1) The law of general beneficence. Example: Do unto others
2) The law if special beneficence. "Natural affection is a thing right..."
3) Duties to parents, elders and ancestors. "Honor thy father and mother"
4) Duties to children and posterity. "Great reverence is owed to the child."
5) The law of justice. "Choose loss rather than shameful gains."
6) The law of good faith and veracity. "The foundation of justice is good faith."
7) The law of mercy. "I have given bread to the hungry."
The law of magnanimity. " Death is better than life with shame."

Correctly, property rights are not included as a form of natural law, although "thou shalt not steal" is listed as an example of the law of justice.

I wanted to add my take on compatibilism, which I did in my last post.