• QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
    hexagon
    ·
    9 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]
      ·
      9 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
        ·
        9 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]
          ·
          9 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
            ·
            9 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]
              ·
              9 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.