it's called hard determinism because it is hard to maintain belief in it in face of all the concerns against it
-
-
the main problem is that the free will skeptic has a lot to deal with. you usually need to outline controversial views of causality or equally controversial interpretations of modern neuroscientific findings to really motivate free will skepticism
-
+ even though i'm favourable to libertarian free will, i don't think there are really any good arguments against compatibilism
-
sure there are, that it's fucking nonsense. either things happen for reasons and we live in a nightmare cosmos or things happen for no reason and we live in an even more nightmare cosmos. a free will that's caused isn't anyone's idea of free will and an uncaused one is worse.
-
so your argument against compatibilism is basically "no u"?
-
what the fuck even is compatibilism besides "we need to punish people to control them so let's pretend they could have done anything differently than they did"
-
there are plenty of compatibilists who are explicitly against retributivism. dennett is one
-
okay. it's still handwaving that reduces to emotional appeals. it doesn't contain a coherent concept of what "free will" even is that doesn't rely on the concept of a soul that's somehow interactive with the world without being causally determined by it, because it can't
-
maybe you should at least read the SEP article on compatibilism or something before going all "facts don't care about your feelings" on them
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
if determinism was true people would stop buying pants, and if people stopped buying pants, the system would crumble the reptilians must keep the wheel of pantedness spinning or we'd stop raising cows for them to harvest cow genetalia
-
oh great another one with a podcast
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.