when a philosophical article opens with "we are not actually going to define the term that this article is about because uh we can't" that's the intellectual equivalent of the guy who tells you "you're too good for me" people tell you who they are https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ …
-
-
(1/2) Totally unfair. It’s not weasel. It’s an encyclopedia article — not an argument. It’s right to review how the term is used without endorsing 1 definition from the beginning. They give a general def at the start and then detail the most common ones. What’s the issue?
-
(2/2) A lot of the debate hinges on which of the many definitions of “free will” is being used. Why do you want this article to take sides?
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.