RE: Soft Determinism, Hard Determinism, Necessitarianism, Fatalism...Huh?
January 9, 2014 at 10:29 pm
(January 9, 2014 at 5:25 pm)bennyboy Wrote: When you need a definition of "free will" that no longer uses traditional definitions of "free" or of "will," then it's time just to say "free will doesn't exist." OR "free will is a mal-formed concept."
I'm sorry, but even the idea of free will being that one's will is free doesn't make sense, as the will is clearly not free. The will is obviously subject to certain inclinations and desires, which even libertarians admit is the case, so long as you aren't saying that those inclinations necessitate some action. So, a better phrase here would be "free choice", as the question is whether or not your choices are necessitated. Given that, I don't think your criticism works because then compatibilism becomes quite viable. It shows that the usual idea of free will is at best incomplete.
Quote:To spend chapters redefining free will in neurological terms, and then say it is compatible with determinism, is really just to say that neurology is deterministic. The whole process of equivocating on free will to arrive at that obvious conclusion is a bit derp.
The same misformed criticism could be labelled towards ANY idea of free will. After all, libertarians will try to "describe free will in incompatibilistic terms is really just to say that free will is indeterministic to arrive at that obvious conclusion is a bit derp."
