Incompatibalism is the only idea that doesn’t grant themselves more assumptions other than “if determinism is true”. Logic will tell you that the simplest idea is most likely true. Even if events are completely or partially random, you still do not have any freedom because there is no freedom in chaos.
Everything is influenced by past events, not determined. There is a difference. Philosophy assumes determinism makes sense as the basis of its argument. That is a problem.
We can rightly say we have a choice if we define choice correcty. Having a choice is to have options we can select in the circumstances . But we have to interpret this correctly. What do we mean by "can" and "the circumstances" The puzzling is only a result of mistakes over those things. The solution is simple.
Finally someone citing d'Holbach. Nobody talks about this guy and he's damn relevant.
Thank you for this elaborate presentation! I'm struggling with this idea for a while now - more specifically, about its ethical implications.
Incompatibalism is the only idea that doesn’t grant themselves more assumptions other than “if determinism is true”. Logic will tell you that the simplest idea is most likely true.
Even if events are completely or partially random, you still do not have any freedom because there is no freedom in chaos.
Nice. I think many of us lean towards soft determinism esp in dark circumstances/experiences
This is the law of paradox caused by the law of polarity. Kyballion.
Lucky Number 7
Everything is influenced by past events, not determined. There is a difference. Philosophy assumes determinism makes sense as the basis of its argument. That is a problem.
We can rightly say we have a choice if we define choice correcty. Having a choice is to have options we can select in the circumstances . But we have to interpret this correctly. What do we mean by "can" and "the circumstances"
The puzzling is only a result of mistakes over those things. The solution is simple.