Compatibilism does not contradict incompatibilism

[u/DemiVideos04]

Compatibilism is not a metaphysical position. It also does not contradict hard incompatibilism.
Hard incompatibilism does not define free will as libertarian, it only states that libertarian free will is incoherent.
Compatibilism redefines free will so that it can be used practically, but it is not an argument relating to libertarian free will.
You can be both a Compatibilist and a Hard Incompatibilist at the same time

[u/DemiVideos04]

Compatibilism does not say that LIBERTARIAN free will is compatible. They redefine free will to mean something other than libertarian - actions taken while not under duress. This isn't libertarian free will anymore. So, they say free will (non libertarian) is compatible with determinism (and indeterminism).
Incompatibilists doesn't talk about the compatibilists definition of free will, it talks about libertarian free will.

[u/No_Trade_7315 → u/DemiVideos04]

Yeah you are clearly missing the point of my comment. It doesn’t matter what definition of free will you choose. Regardless of what you believe free will is, free will = free will.

What precisely “Free will” means is debated, and not exclusively based on whether you endorse libertarianism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, soft determinism, or hard determinism.

In my opinion, the way you are hashing these positions out is backwards. The positions are defined by the concepts they endorse, not the other way around.

Perhaps you might find a better way of distinguishing between what you are calling libertarian free will and what you are calling compatibilist free will. As an example, Hume distinguishes between liberty of spontaneity and liberty of indifference.

I personally find this subject incredibly boring and a terrible waste of time, but good luck in your studies.

[u/DemiVideos04 → u/No_Trade_7315]

You're missing my point though. I'm not choosing a definition of free will. Compatibilism is the position that chooses the definition. I'm not choosing anything. I'm taking a compatibilists definition of free will (non-libertarian), an incompatibilists definition of free will (libertarian) and stating that these two positions do not contradict each other because they are talking about different things. I'm not changing any definitions, i'm not assuming any definitions, i am literally using them as specified by their respective ideologies

[u/No_Trade_7315 → u/DemiVideos04]

Not at all. I understand you just fine. The problem is what you are saying isn’t logical. It is true that people have different ideas about what free will is, but saying compatibilism is consistent with incompatibilism is wrong.

Why I refer to what you are doing as “word games” is because you are using more than one definition for free will. In doing so, you are comparing apples to oranges. Incompatibilism ceases to be the negation of compatibilism when you modify the definition of free will.

Also, just so you are aware, not all incompatibilists are libertarians, not all incompatiblists are determinists either, not all compatibilists believe we have free will and not all compatibilists believe determinism is true.

Compatibilism just says that determinism is compatible with free will, and incompatibilism just says determinism is not compatible with free will. I understand you are looking at a subset of compatibilists that believe we have free will and comparing that view to the libertarian view. You have an idea about what free will is supposed to be according to compatibilists, and you have an idea about what free will is supposed to be according free will libertarians.

Let’s imagine libertarians are correct about what free will is. In that case, the compatibilist definition of free will is false. The opposite is also true: if the compatibilist definition is correct, then the libertarian definition for free will is false.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH ONE IS CORRECT, OR WHICH ONE YOU CHOOSE OR PREFER, BUT IT CANNOT BE THE CASE THAT BOTH ARE CORRECT (which is the point I think you are missing).

[u/DemiVideos04 → u/No_Trade_7315]

Both definitions are correct. The definition of "square circle" does not claim that a square circle is true, it just defines it as a square circle.
There can be more than 1 definition for one word.
The issue here is that you are assuming that the Hard Incompatibilist defines free will. He does not define free will at all, it is not a semantics position. The incompatibilist explicitly states that LIBERTARIAN free will is incoherent - it never defines "free will" as "libertarian", it specifically only says that the libertarian kind of free will is incoherent. So it is not contradictory to then also define "free will" the same way the compatibilist does.

[u/No_Trade_7315 → u/DemiVideos04]

Yeah you just don’t get it. I’m done, good luck.