Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2017 1:17:19 GMT
Aug 30, 2017 0:35:47 GMT @miccee said:
You most certainly have vehemently asserted that you do not believe that our 'will' is fully determined. Previously you have denounced the ideas of compatibilist philosophers such as Daniel Dennett (saying that those ideas reduce us to 'clocks', 'adding machines', 'glorified dippy birds' etc. But I can't see what the difference is between what you're saying now and what the compatibilists espouse. Could you enlighten me as to the difference? "Plain ordinary will" would just be will that is not free, but which is constrained by causality and/or randomness. I wouldn't consider 'compatibilist free will' to be free except in a very narrow sense.
And you're not looking for a philosopher who has views similar to yours, because you don't wish to test whether your beliefs seem sensible or coherent to others. Much like how theists will seek an echo chamber in order to avoid testing their faith.
All there is is the free will of us making choices based on what we are. "Plain ordinary will" is more inane morbid goop you try to leverage for morbid political purpose.
And I don't care what the lugubrious moaner asserts again, out of his arse, just because he wants to as he squeals for universal death for all sentient life. Making choices based on what we are is what is and is the only free will that makes sense. Sorry that doesn't line up with your particular disease.
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.