On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> ? Are you saying that it is obvious that compatibilism is false?

Compatibilism is false.  Unless you do something sneaky like change
the meaning of the term "free will" to make it true.

Which is like changing the definition of "unicorn" to mean "a horse
with a horn glued to it's forehead".

I agree with the critics of compatilism in this passage:

"Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition of free will:
Incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing
something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that
something ought not to be called 'free will'.

Compatibilists are sometimes accused (by Incompatibilists) of actually
being Hard Determinists who are motivated by a lack of a coherent,
consonant moral belief system.

Compatibilists are sometimes called 'soft determinists' pejoratively
(William James's term). James accused them of creating a 'quagmire of
evasion' by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying
determinism.  Immanuel Kant called it a 'wretched subterfuge' and
'word jugglery.'"

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

Reply via email to