Free will

[Edwardo Piet]

This is much too cryptic. Please explain your terms, explain your logic, then demonstrate or justify it.

Sure

If determinism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist because libertarian free will implies by definition the ability to be able to have done otherwise. It would imply that someone could have done differently. Determinism by definition implies that no one and nothing can be different than one determined path. So determinism and libertarian free will are logically incompatible.

If indeterminism is true, libertarian free will cannot exist because indeterminsm means nothing and no one can be determined, which implies that no one can freely will or in other words determine their own behavior, which implies that there is no libertarian free will.

Therefore libertarian free will does not exist.

There is too much sub-text here. Please provide your definitions for me, explain why one is a redefinition of the other, explain what is silly, what is the genuine question, and what is being dodged.

"Will"=Willpower. The dictionary can define that one, same for "free". "Free will" is a willpower that is free. A compatabilist believes that free will is compatible with determinism, but the only kind of will compatible with determinism is the will with the kind of freedom that no one doubts humans have -- just normal human willpower. The only "free" added to that beyond that could be libertarian free will, which is impossible as explained above. Without that it's just ordinary willpower. So compatabilists may call it "free will" but they're just talking about ordinary willpower and calling it "free". That is why I personally think it's silly.

I think you have me confused with dyresand. He is the one making irrelevant appeals to authority, not me. I do not know, nor do I care, what philosophers think. I think for myself and speak for myself.

I am not aware of what Dyresand is or isn't doing. I'm not accusing anyone of an irrelevant appeal to authority. My post was just a general statement of my opinions on the matter, it was not aimed at anyone in particular. I know you think and speak for yourself and I'm sorry that I made you feel otherwise. That was not the intention I had in mind at all. I wasn't even talking to you specifically. I was just posting my opinions.

I will participate in civil discussion only. I do not converse with people in real life who cannot get through 4 sentences without resorting to profanity, and I will not do so here on the internet, either.

That's fine

Personally, I like to swear. It's fun.

It is inevitable that conversing with me will frustrate you. If you are already so spun up that you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head, then don't bother responding to me. If you are able to control your temper and moderate your language, then by all means, let's talk.

I'm not angry I'm having fun I'm sorry that profanity bothers you but I think it's [insert a profane intensifier beginning with 'F' here] awesome.

I'm more than happy to not swear when talking to you, at least during this conversation -- but don't expect me to remember anywhere outside this specific conversation. Swearing is a habit for me, and I enjoy it. It's good for your health too -- studies have shown that profanity can reduce both physical and psychological pain.