Hi Ian, Ian: > Like I said : > "Yes Steve, but when people say "Compatibilism is the position that free > will and determinism are compatible rather than mutually exclusive > positions." They are not (cannot be) using the SEP definition of determinism > you cite. They are using a less greedy definition - a la Dennett (who you > also cite)."
Steve: Yes, of course the question depends on what one means by the terms. So, would you agree that a more appropriate response to a claim that free will and determinism are compatible would be, "that depends on what you mean"? Or do you stand by dmb's approach?, e.g "you ignorant slut!. That is just wildly incoherent and improper use of the basic meanings of terms!" An important meta-issue here is the care we offer in trying to understand what philosophers mean on their own terms (as dmb was willing to do for James with his use of the word "chance" as equivalent to free will but not for me in my non-metaphysical use of the word "determinism"). Rather than insist that, say, anyone defending abortion rights is hereby required to refer to her own position as "pro-death" to respect "proper use of terms," we remain open to nuance and even unfamiliar usages. Arguing for new ways of using language is where the creative work has always been done in philosophy. Best, Steve 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
