|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 10, 2014 23:00:15 GMT
It seems the main strategy behind compatibilist free will is to offer strawman arguments that change the definition of the term free will away from the concept of free will that Augustine coined and defended in his 380 CE book De Libero Arbitrio, (On Free Will) and thereafter refuted by Spinoza, Edwards, d'Holbach, Schopenhauer, Einstein, and many others. This thread is devoted to listing the ways in which compatibilists completely miss the point of the debate, and attempting to understand the nature of their intellectually immature, illogical, transparent, and dishonest approach to the issue of free will.
|
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 11, 2014 6:56:58 GMT
I think the main problem is that people are confusing freedom of action with freedom of will. Some of us are free to do what we want, but the main point is that we don't choose to want it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 13, 2014 8:29:15 GMT
That's certainly one reason. Roy Baumeister, a compatibilist who, for example, authored pioneering academic papers, and a book, on willpower, confuses free will for willpower. The mystery becomes, how can someone with so much supposed experience with, and academic authority on, willpower make such a profoundly unintelligent mistake?
|
|
|
|
Post by chandlerklebs on Nov 14, 2014 0:48:22 GMT
That's certainly one reason. Roy Baumeister, a compatibilist who, for example, authored pioneering academic papers, and a book, on willpower, confuses free will for willpower. The mystery becomes, how can someone with so much supposed experience with, and academic authority on, willpower make such a profoundly unintelligent mistake? Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Roy doesn't have a free will. I will want to find out more about his background to see where his free will belief came from. |
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 14, 2014 20:35:53 GMT
Yes, it is wonderful that understanding free will as an illusion makes it possible for the more elevated perspective that neither intelligence nor its lack is truly up to us. Another way Baumeister and others mis-define free will, this time via linguistically conflated reasoning, is to suggest that free will means we "could have chosen otherwise"; see chapter 4 of my Free Will and Climate Change book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Soden on Nov 24, 2014 4:47:49 GMT
Yes, it is wonderful that understanding free will as an illusion makes it possible for the more elevated perspective that neither intelligence nor its lack is truly up to us. Another way Baumeister and others mis-define free will, this time via linguistically conflated reasoning, is to suggest that free will means we "could have chosen otherwise"; see chapter 4 of my Free Will and Climate Change book. I don't believe in free will now, however I have a difficult time letting that old belief go because blame and responsibility is more or less how I was raised. If I get into a negative mindset some blame-like words will slip out, but I don't truly mean them. |
|
|
|
Post by George Ortega on Nov 24, 2014 23:59:30 GMT
Absolutely Jamie; its so much easier to understand that we don't have a free will than to integrate that understanding, and have our emotions and behavior reflect that reality. One reason I wish everyone would finally get that free will is an illusion is that once that happens, it will be much, much easier for all of us to overcome the deeply ingrained habit of blaming ourselves and others.
|
|
