Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pompous Fuckhead
That is not the only definition [of free will].
|
YES, YES IT IS! If your choice is
caused it is, by definition
not free! If you add deterministic elements to the concept of free will, it isn't "free will" anymore, it's compatibilism. Oh, and did I mention that I consider compatibilism garbage?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wikipedia.com
According to Hume, free will should not be understood as an absolute ability to have chosen differently under exactly the same inner and outer circumstances. Rather, it is a hypothetical ability to have chosen differently if one had been differently psychologically disposed by some different beliefs or desires.
|
This is nothing more than a desperate rationalization on the part of Hume. That hypothetical "could have" is nothing more than a phantom, a non-issue. The decision
was caused. End of story. This psuedo-doctrine of compatibilism probably arose out of the terrifying realization among thinkers like Hobbes and Hume that determinism would completely undermine the traditional conception of justice and ethics. They made a last-ditch attempt to salvage man's responsibility for his actions.
But I can see why
you're unwilling to dispose of free will, Mr. Laissez-Faire. If man isn't totally free, the primary justification for libertarianism is destroyed. Wouldn't that be the most beautiful irony? Your pompous alleigance to chemical and genetic determinism backfiring in your fat, middle-aged face.
Threaded Mode
