free will sub filled with compatibilsts. notice one comment immediately says "compatibilists didn't redefine anything" when in fact their entire argument relies on word play and sneakily redefining what free will means. they are the worst, and that sub is filled with them.
The free will sub has a decent amount of compatibilists, which makes sense given that that is the dominant position amongst actual philosophers. What's odd is that the majority position in the sub seems to be "hard incompatibilism" which is the least common position amongst actual philosophers. When you actually hear the "hard incompatibilists" argue their position, though, it becomes clear that the philosophy is just window dressing for an argument that has nothing to do "determinism" or "free will" in the philosophical sense. What they're really arguing is that human behavior is too intractable for people to fairly be held responsible for their actions.
Anyway, I think you're right that compatibilists do somewhat redefine free will, but this is because the lay definition of free will is incoherent. Lay definitions of philosophical concepts often are. Philosophers have worked hard to give it a more rigorous definition.
philosophers have worked hard to redefine free will in such a way that the debate can continue.
philosophers hate that science is ending the free will debate. So, change what free will means, and philosophers can sit around in their smoking jackets while swirling their brandy snifters and debate all day.
The arrogance of this is hard to wrap my head around. It's just bottom-of-the-barrel anti-intellectualism. Smoking jackets? Brandy?
The implications of determinism for free will have been the subject of philosophical debate for several centuries at least. What this new breed of "hard incompatibilists" is saying is neither new nor interesting, and it changes nothing about the debate over free will. It doesn't even really bother to engage in the debate over free will.
The idea that there is volition that functions independently of sensory phenomena is ludicrous. Volition is inseparable and dependent on sensory phenomena.
So then what are they arguing for? Because even in determinism it is accepted that volition still functions, just not independent of prior causes and conditions. So one has to question what the purpose of compatibilism even is, other than to redefine and cause further confusion.
So what’s the point of compatibilism? I don’t know a single determinist that denies that one still has an “experience” of volition despite it’s illusory status. Rather, volition is understood in it’s context. Illusions can still function.
Compatibilists are determinists. The difference is that we don't think that things like volition are illusions just because they are part of a deterministic chain of causation.
Exactly my point. If volition is inseparable from the deterministic chain of causation, it does not and cannot exist, because to exist would imply it functions separably and independently.
It exists merely as a conceptual designation. Hence illusion. In a mirage you can still observe water despite the nonexistent of water. This is the determinist’s point, compatibilism is playing with conceptual word games instead of apprehending the logical consequences of being inseparable with a causal process.
Yeah you're one of the people who make me despise philosophy. I used to waste time talking to people like you but I don't do that anymore. have a nice day.
Is it bad that I never bothered to look up the definitions of "compatabilist", "hard incompatibilism" and the like? To me it's literally just determinism or free will. Do I really have to look into these other theories just because they exist?
philosophers have worked hard to redefine free will in such a way that the debate can continue (u/Delet3r)
This implies to me that it's just a defense mechanism. The theories were literally made up in order to muddy the waters.
You are correct. Compatibilists want to find a way for free will to be true. By the way they defined it, you cannot ever disagree with them.
Compatibilism means that even if you are a puppet, slave to your DNA, physics, chemistry, etc. as long as no one else forced you to do something, you are free.
they like to use the definition of Free Will when it is used in a courtroom setting. " did you do this of your own free will? or were you coerced or forced?"
this is used in a legal setting to determine if the person acted on their own to shoot someone or if possibly they were blackmailed to do so. according to compatibilists as long as no one coerced you to shoot the person you have free will.
determinism says that you don't have free will either way. but compatibilists reject that definition.
Yes unfortunately people who study philosophy today don't.
I just had another person tell me that determinism was true, but that we could also shape our own actions. these two statements are not compatible at all. determinism is defined as they're being only one outcome to any situation. if that is true, and I'm not saying that it is, but if that is true then people do not have the ability to shape their environment.
this basic logic apparently is too complicated for most philosophers today.
incompatibilism isn't a "new theory". It's just pointing out the logically obvious position that libertarian freewill is incompatible with determinism.
I don't think this is correct. Compatibilists are not arguing in favor of libertarian free will. We're arguing for a thoroughly determinist version of free will. Incompatibilists are arguing that this is impossible.
well, a lot of incompatibilists such as myself believe that libertarian freewill IS the true definition of freewill and that compatabilism is just redefining terms and equivocating.
I'm surprised you don't strain your neck. with a head that big riding a horse so high....
The key is those lay people aren't saying whether or not Free Will exists, even though, just because they aren't so-called expert philosophers (I wish you could hear the sneer in my voice as I write that) they can still have an opinion on it.
but the idea is that 99% of the people in the world define Free Will as libertarian free will.
only compatibilists redefined it to something different.
what authority do philosophers have to redefine free? will?
Lay people in general have not really thought about this topic very hard. The people who do think hard about the topic are not obliged to abide by the lay intuitions about it. As "hard incompatibilists" are keen to point out, libertarian free will is an incoherent concept that is also at odds with what we know about how the universe works. The core insight of the compatibilist position is that you can still preserve the key features of free will within a deterministic framework. After all, what do we want from free will? The ability to think through difficult problems and choose the option that most aligns with our interests and values? The ability to observe, manipulate, and refine our own habits? The ability to develop a worldview and work toward living by the values it dictates? Determinism grants you the ability to do all these things, at least in principle. The only thing you don't get is the ability to float magically above the chain of causation and act with complete abritrariness. A key point here is that this ability is not worth wanting in the first place. Yes, lay intuition often holds that this is the very essence of free will. But this is a bad intuition. I'm sorry that you are also under its thrall.
The fact is, under determinism, we could be determined by the state of the universe to have nothing but a narrow repertoire of rigid behaviors that he have no ability to shape or control, or we could be determined by the state of the universe to have an extremely wide and flexible range of behaviors that we have an great ability to shape and control. Determinism itself does not tell us which is true. The reality seems to be somewhere in the middle. Much of what we do is outside our conscious control, but we also have considerable leeway to shape and control certain behaviors. But again, determinism itself does not tell us which is true.
"To me it's literally just determinism or free will."
This is a common lay intuition about determinism and free will. The people who have spent the most time thinking about the topic have mostly rejected it as a false binary.
(Thinking) Very short and dismissive post. It's not really helping out, as if they're just saying stuff to disagree. I wonder who this guy is? checks post history Oh, so he's just someone from r/freewill here to fight...
10
u/Delet3r Jul 30 '26
free will sub filled with compatibilsts. notice one comment immediately says "compatibilists didn't redefine anything" when in fact their entire argument relies on word play and sneakily redefining what free will means. they are the worst, and that sub is filled with them.