(October 13, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I disagree. What typically happens is that the people who want to talk about some metaphysical nonsense never bother to explain what the hell they mean by "free will." They then make various pronouncements about it, and argue with other people who likewise fail to properly define their terms. They then have pointless arguments with each other, with no real hope of any progress whatsoever, because neither really knows what the other is talking about. Typically, such discussions degenerate into insults, as other people make statements that are "obviously false" according to some person's idea of "free will," and they in turn make statements that are "obviously false" according to other's ideas of "free will." But since they stupidly never told the other people what, precisely, they meant, they are often not talking about the same things at all, and just imagine that the other people are stupid for not agreeing with what is "perfectly obvious" to themselves. (There are numerous examples one can find online in various forums in which the discussion is about "free will," though I will not presently provide any links, both because those running this forum may not like links to other forums, and because I do not wish to deal with people complaining about me pointing out that they have failed to explain what they mean and are consequently wasting everyone's time in their thread.)
What seems to be the most common alternative, people define "free will" in such a way that it is obviously ridiculous nonsense, that no person of sense would ever accept as true. (We know, for example, that people commonly do not like sticking their hands in fires, and we know this due to the fact that there is generally great pain associated with that activity. And we also know that people did not choose to have a hand in the first place, so that the fact that people generally will to not stick their hands in fires is largely due to things that they did not choose. Consequently, any definition of "free will" that requires that everything pertaining to the choice made be due only to the previous choices of the person is obviously not something people [or anything else] actually has.)
Sometimes, the above is somewhat obscured by the fact that something may be presented as a definition, but that something is inadequate to explain the meaning.
This seems a rather laborious argument from consequences to justify the fact that you don't want to talk about any other conception of will.
Not at all. I am happy to discuss other ideas. But I am not happy to discuss words that are not defined. It is when people introduce terms that require definition, and do not define them, that is the problem. The simple fact is, different people have different ideas of what "free will" means, and if they don't bother to say what they mean, then trying to discuss "free will" with them will be a total waste of time. You may as well be discussing adiassadiondasdawewbar with them, without anyone bothering to say what the hell the term means.
(October 13, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(October 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: When I choose to keep my hand out of a fire, I do that primarily due to what I am. It is an act of will on my part. And so it is "free." It makes no difference for this if my will was caused to be what it is purely due to preceding conditions, was fully causally determined, or not. In such an instance with my hand and a fire, I act as I do because of what I am, not primarily due to the circumstances.
But what I am is a part of the circumstances, so there is no part that is not compulsory in Aristotle's sense.
By the circumstances, Aristotle means the part of the situation that is not the agent.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
