Please point out any inconsistency’s I have stated instead of trying to fish for them by labeling me. I am arguing for Compatibilism, that is all. You can label me a Compatibilist. Compatibilists do believe free will and determinism are compatible and I already explained how, probably 3 or 4 times as well. Determinism does not say anything about there being a prerequisite about no choice.
Wiki states: Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen. There are many versions of this thesis. Each rest upon various alleged connections, and interdependencies of things and events, asserting that these hold without exception.
I didn’t say that is all you’ve done. I was simply trying to assist you in critiquing me so I know how to respond to answer your critique more succinctly.
Lets just say its: mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending b : a disposition to act according to principles or ends
from websters.
That’s because you are looking back and saying you had no choice. If you look ahead, then you have a choice. And I don’t think that most people use your definition of the word ‘choice’ - most people use it to mean a set of options.
As for the rock analogy, I prefer a water analogy. Water will flow down a slope according to the laws of physics. Let’s assume that water is a conscious being. At any point in time, it has a choice of which direction to flow. It always chooses the path of least resistance. It doesn’t ‘know’ what the the path of least resistance is until it arrives a specific location. In fact it doesn’t ‘know’ what the path of least resistance is until after it has taken the path and is looking backwards - saying “oh, so that was the the easiest way”.
Scale that up to the level of a human being who has a decision processing brain which is the result of literally millions of experiences. At any point in time, the human is presented with a set of choices. The decision between those choices is much more complex than the ‘decision’ that water has to make but none the less it is just as driven by past history/experience.
But without choice there are no options. I don’t get this at all. If it is true that “The law of universal causation … may be enunciated as follows: … given the state of the whole universe … every previous and subsequent event can theoretically be determined” then there is no philosophical difference between looking forwards or looking backwards. From a deterministic perspective, all is determined - there is no choice. Though “choice” sounds more acceptable and less supernatural than “free” will, from the determinist’s point of view, it is equally wrong. There is no wiggle room at all.
This is just a description of determinism that plays fast and loose with the meaning of the word “choice”.
Only_Humean, I apologize but I think I’m being a little bit dense. Can you explain further? What does “of his own free will” as “the context in which we are to judge his actions” mean, if it’s referring to neither physical determinism (conditioned response to stimuli) nor semantics (per Flannel Jesus)? Are you just saying that we can still judge people even if their course in life is completely predetermined?
I think there is so much semantic variety in this thread that I have to rethink how to approach this. If I find time at some point I might come up with a multiple choice “test” (not really a test) that clarifies certain positions which are or are not compatible with certain other positions. But that might be too much for me, in which case I guess I’d just drop it. Seems like we’re talking past each other. I just don’t understand your approach to this.