Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 20:15:44 GMT
tpfkar
to @miccee at Aug 6, 2017 0:26:55 GMT -500"Free" as in the only way most people have ever cared about it. Free to do what we choose as pleases us according to our tastes & traits, as opposed to being forced by some other. The "cause" is us, regardless of how we came to be who we are.
"Free will" is notation for what we exercise and experience. Straw-incoherencies for free will are the interpretations of one who seeks to use distortion and misrepresentation in service to arguing against other faiths rivaling his own ritualistic death cult.
And they shouldn't be expected to pay the price of everyone else's joy. Especially if nobody would be deprived of that joy in a universe with no sentient life.
In that case, let us suppose that your definition of "free will" represents the reality that we have in this universe. OK now, let's imagine a parallel universe which is physically identical to ours, with the exception that the inhabits possess only plain ordinary "will" which is fully constrained by determinism. What differences would you expect to observe between the behaviour of the people in the 'free will' universe, and the behaviour of those in the 'ordinary will' universe? Would you expect the inhabitants of 'ordinary will' universe not to act in accordance to their preferences, tastes and traits at times when they are not being coerced by another agent?
Your "ostensibly"'s mean absolutely nothing. Put in the mildest possible terms your silly assertions are thoroughly premature even when setting aside the fact that they are driven by your great wish for it to go away in order to facilitate your incapable lunges at other religions. We live it, and the phenomenon isn't more than coarsely defined, much less it's mechanisms explained. Regardless of the hand waves of admitted zealots.
"Free will" is one interpretation of subjective conscious experience; but the same experience seems to be well explained by determinism as well, and without the need for positing unexplained and ill-defined phenomena.
As you are about as far distant from "intellectual honesty" as you are from personal happiness, your reference to it is a bit of a black giggle. For every philosopher going one way you can find several going contrary. Nor do I care to entertain diversionary appeals to philosophical terms people use slightly to widely differently and with political heat attached according to disingenuously peddled specific agendas. If you can't articulate without punting to one vs. the other philosopher or arbitrary definitions you abuse, I can't help you.
If there are so many diverse philosophical views on the matter, then there should be no difficulty in finding a well known and respected philosopher whose views on the subject align with yours. The only reason I've asked for it is because I don't think that you would honestly be able to find such a source.