it's called hard determinism because it is hard to maintain belief in it in face of all the concerns against it
the SEP article on compatibilism OPENS BY TALKING ABOUT HOW IT'S MAKING PROPOSITIONS ABOUT A PROPERTY IT CAN'T COHERENTLY DEFINE and segues into how really we're trying to make moral responsibility i.e. authority to punish compatible with determinism
-
-
ok you read like two sentences of it and misread it even at that. 1. moral responsibility doesn't entail that punishment is justified. 2. compatibilism is sometimes expressed as the view that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism, as it states
-
even if we accept such a definition and even if we erroneously believe that entails that punishment is justified, what makes someone capable of moral responsibility reveals interesting facts about agency that go beyond the moral implications of it
-
all of that shit is a lot of song and dance around the fact that we *are going to* exert interference against collections of molecules that are inconvenient to us so we like to make up doctrines that permit us to do so
-
ok whatever makes you feel better about dismissing large hosts of philosophical work you haven't read
-
i don't have to read everything Piers Anthony has ever written to know that he's crap. if these numbnuts motherfuckers had come up with a usable definition of free will that's neither "casuality but let's pretend" nor acausality you would have brought it up by now tbqf
-
i'm not even talking about "everything". just at least some of it
-
you're just throwing edgy rhetoric all over the place and dismissing half-understood ideas you refuse to get more acquainted with
-
or possibly i actually studied philosophy beyond the 100 level and have a lot of frustration with the gigantic nodes of bullshit still embedded in it
- 5 more replies
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.