I find determinism an extremely comforting filosophy;
If i make mistakes, it is not my fault
If others injure me, it is not their fault
if bad things happen, i could not change them
If good things happen, they would happen.
If i achieve not something, i was destined to do so
If i achieve something, i was destined to do so
All is well. All is as it has to be. Nothing can be any other way, and it is not my fault. Everything i feel has a cause, everything that happens has a cause. I am not guilty for feeling bad, or happy, or angry. God fated me to be so.
Overall; i have a pourpose in life, and by virtue of being alive, i fullfill it
Did I ask?
Combined with the doctrine of unconditional election, it's absolutely terrifying (at least to me).
Yeah anyone who thinks they can know they are saved under this soteriological model is huffing copium. Particularly is you subscribe to evanescent grace.
>incompatibilist determinism
You mean determinism?
Are you confusing compatible with causal?
I mean incompatibilism and determinism, hard determinism, of which I'm not a fan
All continental philosophy is just semantic games anyway. Compatibilism is a blatant cope.
What's this supposed problem with compatibilism?
It's so silly, to pretend people have a theory of causality in mind when they talk about 'choices', 'blame', responsibility', etc
Determinism is unfalsifiable. You cannot, even in principle, figure out if determinism or indeterminism is true
Compatibilism is just saying we're going to change the defition of free will from the ability to have done otherwise, to acting in accordance with a predisposition, which would be the opposite of free will if anything. Its pure pilpul.
Wow, you figured us out!
Compatibilist does in fact not use a definition of free will that presupposes incompatibilism to be true.
>Waow you figured out that we are homosexuals arbitrarily redefining terms
Weird flex but I'll let you have it if it makes you happy.
So, like, what's some of these definitions that are incompatible with compatibilism?
Give us some example of terms compatibilists are redefining
The genuine ability to have done otherwise otherwise known as "free will".
Yeah, determinist don't think this is a thing.
What terms are we redefining?
Okay so compatibilists never use the term "free will"? This is suprising to me. I thought the whole point of compatibilism was to claim belief in free will and determinism simultaenously. I had no idea that compatibilists didn't use the term "free will" at all. Thanks for clearing this confusion up.
Lmao, meaning is usage.
When the guy in front of me in the line at the supermarket talk about free will, does it come with the baked-in theory that determinism is false?
But, okay. I have grant what you say about redefining terms. Compatibilists want to redefine free will away from how you defined it, to be combatable with determinism.
I want to rewind 7 posts, to "it being a sematic cope".
I don't get this at all. It's not a trick, it's about how to best describe reality
IF, if, if, if, determinism is true, would you want to do away with "free will" -type of language? Why?
Keep in mind, a world where determinism is true, is indistinguishable from a world where determinism is false.
Its not even worth mentioning unless it is the ability to do otherwise. People do what they ultimately want to do? Nice philosophical concept bro. You can call it Jergenschĺüt thoughever.
>Its not even worth mentioning unless it is the ability to do otherwise
So, like, if I talk to Muslims or reformed Christians. They are historically not gonna agree with that.
Don't really know what you/people could even mean by "the ability to do otherwise". Sounds like nonsense.
The ability to do the impossible, or something like that. Usually, people just chose the possible.
No, it means I could have actually chosen chocolate instead of red bean icecream today. I'm not even saying I could have. I'm just saying that is what free will has always meant to people. Simple as.
>I'm not even saying I could have.
lol, you kinda need for it to be possible, in order to "have the ability to do otherwise"
this is what I meant by the ability to do the impossible
No, I mean I'm not attached to the concept of free will. It seems rather paradoxical or even incoherent. Its just that this compatibilism crap muddies the waters. Compatibilist free will is a complete red-herring.
How can free will mean anything to anyone, if it's meaningless nonsense? At that point, no one knows what it means, they are just making sounds.
>Compatibilist free will is a complete red-herring.
I still want to use "free will language", even if it turns out my choices are determined. What's the herring?
Its not "meaningless nonsense". Its very intuitive, which is why it is so often discussed and controversial in the first place. Basically its like that stonetoss comic and the compatibilist, whether Calvinist or naturalist or pagan is the "Feet" guy, going "hEy GUiSE Y'kNOw I BeLIEvE iN FrEE wILL tOO". You just want to say fuck off retard. Also its fine if you want to use "free will language" in an informal way but acting like its a robust philosophical answer to the problem of free will is the problem. Just stop coping and admit you don't believe in free choice.
>Its not "meaningless nonsense"
You just said it seemed rather incoherent (meaningless)
What does what I think personally have to do with whether it is or not? And for that matter what does whether if is or not have to do with what delineates the discussion (which I would say the desires of the agent lie outside the pruview of)? In fact the free will debate has more to do with whether true randomness exists for impersonal agents than whether personal agents act in accordance with their nature.
Look, I can grant randomness (indeterminacy)
Free will still doesn't make sense. If your choice is indeterminate (random), you don't suddenly get a superpower to "have done otherwise"
My point of shitting on free will as a concept, is to get at -> probably people don't mean this, cuz there's no meaning to be found here, it doesn't make sense
Well conceptually its not incoherent; its very easy to understand. That's why I said its more paradoxical than anything. Its like the concept of time travel, it only starts to fall apart once you acknowledge the inherent coherence of the idea by logically thinking through its implications. In the case of free will, we are left to wonder what is choosing and when. But it still seems intuitive that "you" could have acted out of accord with any number of these choices. That's why people generally talk about free will or indeed randomness, to see if counterfactuals are potentialities, not because they want to figure out how to get a fate agent off the hook.
>the problem of free will is the problem
lmao, What's the question that needs answering?
Determinism doesn't believe in free will, right? So I can probably just reject that there even is a problem that needs to be answered.
>Just stop coping and admit you don't believe in free choice
Ok. I don't believe in choice, as you define it. To be incompatible with determinism.
I'm just using another word, made up with the same letters, to mean something else than you do. (at least my concept isn't incoherent)
Look dude, the Bible is incoherent but I don't go around saying that the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus or some other philosophy book is the "real" Bible. For the last time I'm not defending free-will, I am defending the integrity of the discussion.
Okay, I think I'm starting to get you.
Again, my point is, that I don't grant that this is the way people use the term "free will". People talk about free will all the time, without having a clue about what determinism or indeterminism even is.
If the concept hinges on the ability to do otherwise. But the ability to do otherwise makes no sense, then the term people use all the time (free will), doesn't really hinge on some confused theory.
There's been tests done on this, as to how people use language and make sense of the concepts.
If you tell a random normal person a story about a world where determinism is true.
Then start asking them questions about how responsibility, blame, free will, etc, would apply in the hypothetical. The people in the test starts giving answers that are COMPATIBLE with, uh, determinism . compatibilist friendly answerers.
>a world where determinism is true.
The way this was done in the test, was without using specialized philosophical terms.
It told a story that was something like: Time rewinded, but the exact same things would happen
Kinda SciFi, but painting a picture of a world where determinism is true.
>that is what free will has always meant to people
except to Muslims, reformed Christians, and probably a lot of israelites
Do Hindus even have a concept of determinism/indeterminism? Some cultures don't seem to care.
Even with Muslims it's a sorta post-hoc conclusion, to best make sense of their theology after the West exposed them to the ideas
What do I care what a butch of apes and the dutch think? Lmao.
>dirk doesn't know what either compatibilism and hard determinism are
>in his mind compatibilism is libertarianism lite
Lmao that explains a lot.
>I find determinism an extremely comforting filosophy
?si=uzE3QXYcFx5ds_-0
?si=mSOnEKKpdSoyrJBF
This is foolishness, determinism is not a falsifiable hypothesis
Free will is far more of the comforting cope philosophy
If you do well at something or “achieve” something it isn’t because you were at the right place at the right time, born and raised under the right circumstances it’s because you’re just a super special unique snowflake
If you behave morally, it isn’t because you were raised right, or had the right role models it’s because once again you’re just a super special unique snowflake
The people you dislike deserve no compassion. They didn’t turn out the way they did because of their circumstances it’s because they’re evil or not super special like you so they deserve everything they get, it’s all self-justifying so we don’t have to change anything, changing their environment doesn’t matter, they all chose to be evil the moment they were born you see
Determinism requires you to humble yourself and empathize with other people, believing in free will does not.
Are you saying atheists are humble and empathic?
Nobody said anything about atheism
Okay then it follows that determinism doesn't require you to do anything except what you actually do.
Your point? Free will doesn't require you to do anything either.
You just said it requires humility to affirm determinism.
I'm not that anon. If you asked me personally, I woukd say that humility is a consequence of determinism, not a prerequisite.
Everything is a consequence of determinism, if its true, including outright rebellion. Which is my point.
Okay then why are Calvinists the most smug Christians?
%3D%3D
it's the other way around
if you make mistakes, if you injure someone or if you achieve something, it *is* your fault. Your personhood is the factor that caused those consequences to take place, people didn't start to dislike you because they have some randomly generated free will quotient that means they will love or hate you regardless of what you do.
People don't have a random chance of changing and becoming completely different at the drop of a hat, the decisions they make is *determined* by who they are. Not the other way around. That is how we can come to trust those that do good to us and push away those that hurt us.