• Maoo [none/use name]
    ·
    9 months ago

    Being part of the universe doesn't change the metaphysical question, it just rejects a historical religious framing of it. Souls, a ghost in the machine, etc. Most people believe in the latter and have for a very long time, so it's understandable that this is the usual object of the critique, but it doesn't exhaust the question.

      • Maoo [none/use name]
        ·
        8 months ago

        Who said I had materialist free will?

        I'm just pointing out various inconsistencies and errors in thought. Whether I have a personal position that is super smart or the worst thing you've ever heard wouldn't change the fact that these analyses or claims have the faults I've pointed out.

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
          hexagon
          ·
          8 months ago

          So you're debating 19th century German philosophers on behalf of a 19th century german philosopher. All I mean by determinism is that free will doesn't exist.

          • Maoo [none/use name]
            ·
            8 months ago

            Marx is a 19th century German philosopher, though his philosophy was dead-set on building a framework for overthrowing capitalism. Diamat is weird German philosophy, it's about 80% of why it's so hard to understand in the first place.

            So, philosophy nerds tend to separate determinism from free will for the purpose of asking whether they are compatible. When I see people saying free will doesn't exist, that determinism is instead what's up, and that science is saying things about the matter, I interpret you're an incompatibilist that believes in a materialist determinism and an absence of free will. I see other folks in the comments making similar statements, including fatalistic ones.

            So where am I going wrong?

            • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
              hexagon
              ·
              8 months ago

              You're wrong in assuming free will does exist. I'm agnostic about hard line determinism, I just use it as a stand in for the antithesis of assuming there is free will. I've said this before, but "free will" assumes a human above nature and a soul like entity. I refer you to the Lemmygrad side for what does exist if there's no free will.

              • Maoo [none/use name]
                ·
                8 months ago

                When I said, "where am I going wrong?" I was obviously referring to the summary I had just given, none of which included "I assume free will exists".

                So, were am I going wrong in that summary?

                • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                  hexagon
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The summary is pretty much correct, but I can not tell if you have held on to your initial position that compatibilism is correct. One of the first comments science cannot prove the existence of free will, but I have yet to see even a coherent philosophical argument for it.

                  • Maoo [none/use name]
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You are incorrect about what things I've said but it's become redundant with the other threads so I'm going to stop replying to this particular chain.