Strange, Ron, I don't remember dmb's explanation addressing compatibilism. Actually, I don't remember dmb presenting being much of an explanation either.
On Jul 31, 2011, at 12:19 PM, X Acto wrote: > > > Steve: > Why use a term when you can be nearly guaranteed to be misunderstood > when you use it? Who outside of the handful of people participating in > this forum would think you were defending the capacity to respond to > dynamic quality when you say people have free will? How is that > shorthand helpful even around here? > > Ron: > Compatibilism in this context has been around for quite some time and believe > it > or > not would be understood by more than this forum. If you do a quick search on > the topic you find that there would not be much confusion at all in using > these > terms. > > As Stanford encyclopedia writes: > ".1 Free Will > It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will > since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably > no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on > this issue have been hunting for, maybe not exclusively, but centrally, > is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally > responsible for their conduct." > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ > > > ..... ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
