Flammarion wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 03:10, Rex Allen <rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:13 AM, David Nyman<david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think his exploration of
>>> the constraints on our actions in "Freedom Evolves" is pretty much on
>>> the money.
>> So I can't comment on Freedom Evolves, as I haven't read it.  But I
>> have read some of his articles and seen him debate and give
>> interviews.  So that sounds like Dennett alright - rearranging deck
>> chairs, redefining words, whatever it takes.
>> From the wikipedia article on "Freedom Evolves":
>> "In his treatment of both free will and altruism, he starts by showing
>> why we should not accept the traditional definitions of either term."
>> So, as I said, you can't read quote of Dennett and accept it at face
>> value, because Dennett doesn't restrict himself to traditional
>> definitions of terms.  You have to interpret Dennett's quotes within
>> the context of his web of alternate, non-traditional "compatibilist"
>> word definitions.
>> Dennett's main goal is not to show that determinism is compatible with
>> free will (which it isn't),
> actually it is, although I don't find it very convincing
I think Dennett's point is that compatibilist free-will has all the 
chracteristics of free-will that people usually think are important - 
it's "all the free-will worth having".


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to