Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:38 pm
You're worse than Imabiguous.
You do no reasoning.
You just repeat your assertions. Even more than he does.
You do no reasoning.
You just repeat your assertions. Even more than he does.
Philosophy Now Forum
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
compatibilism
Page 336 of 422
You do no reasoning.
You just repeat your assertions. Even more than he does.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:40 pm
You aren't making any sense.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:33 pm"Then at this point" what do you mean? What specifically was said that means they don't mean anything?Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:31 pmGood, then at this point free will, determinism, compatibilism and incompatibilism mean whatever we want them to mean ie. they don't mean anything.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:15 pm
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.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:40 pm
Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:45 pm
You aren't making any sense either.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:46 pm
I'm not an arrogant fuck like you.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:46 pm
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:48 pm
Sure. If you say so then it must be true.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:54 pm
Okay. Here's where I stand on the topic...
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.
And 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.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:59 pm
You just repeat the same assertion over and over and over.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:02 pm
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:06 pm
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:07 pm
I'm a defender of reasoning.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:10 pm
Then 1700 years ago they had a brain fart and never recovered.
The Stoics understood this stuff and their reasoning is still sound.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:17 pm
Well, from the look of things, here and elsewhere, you Defenders of Reason aren't doin' a very good job.
Anyway, I'm apparently unreasonable and definitely unruly so mebbe you oughta take yourself down the road and leave me be.
'nuff said.
Re: compatibilism
Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:25 pm
It's not that you are unreasonable. It's that you are not doing any reasoning at all.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 6:17 pmWell, from the look of things, here and elsewhere, you Defenders of Reason aren't doin' a very good job.
Anyway, I'm apparently unreasonable and definitely unruly so mebbe you oughta take yourself down the road and leave me be.
'nuff said.
You state your position. And when you are challenged, you restate your position.
That's not philosophy. That's not progress. That's not moving forward. That's not learning. That's not a discussion.