Philosophy Now Forum

Where does compatibilism fit?

This is not incompatible with determinism. Determinism is not materialism or physicalism. for example, one can say that a person has a non-physical soul. The determinist position is that soul is part of the character of the person. It's a factor in the state of the person at any moment. It plays a ...

An elected group of people, as in a government, yes. Why are elected folks better suited to control an atom bomb than you? If it was possible to ensure NO body has the ability to own an atom bomb then I would prefer that...contrary to what you would prefer. I don't disagree. I would prefer nukes di...

NO SINGLE PERSON should have the right to own, possess and control an atom bomb. What about a group of people? As for my sentiments : there is freedom , there is security . There is no middle ground, no third choice. Pick one. Understand: there's a price, sumthin' you give up, no matter which you c...

Yes, no single person should have the ability to make a judgement to detonate an atom bomb simply by ownership. That's nice. Now, do you say there are properties no one should have, as in no one should own or possess or control an atom bomb ? Or do you say there are properties only certain people s...

Excerpts from a piece over at... https://mindmatters.ai/ ...(which I, upthread, suggested as a starting point for conversation [a suggestion, I suspect, that's been dismissed])... The purely scientific idea of man tends only to link together measurable and observable data taken as such, and is deter...

So, just to be clear: do you say there are properties no one should have, as in no one should own or possess or control an atom bomb , or, do you say there are properties only certain people should have, as in only a qualified or approved or sanctioned person should own or possess or control an ato...

No I certainly would never build such a weapon, but interesting what a fool you are since you certainly would advocate to everyone being allowed to own it!! :roll: I only say a person has a right to property. That's foolish? I only ask why should someone, who's done no wrong with his property, be p...

meh...no point in beatin' a dead horse Oh, I didn't see this. I wrote sumthin' in response to phy, then thought better of it and replaced it with that . I'm not out . Well, above I tried a different approach, a little overview like. Which I'll touch on, not in depth, now. ----- You seem to believe ...

Not a particularly wise move though is it? Were we talkin' about what's wise? If so... Not particularly wise of you to build a weapon of mass destruction or to put it on the market. Or to use it for self-defence. Mutually assured destruction is still self-destruction, not self-defence. Agreed. Howe...

meh...no point in beatin' a dead horse

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:59 pmI didn't mention others.

You commented about going me against my nature.

I pointed out, as my nature is to self-direct, to go against my nature would be to choose to be directed by others.

You're still just alluding to things instead of saying them. We'll have to agree to disagree. you aren't saying why. I did say why. If you disagree *shrug* I can't help you. yet the scenario you're here agreeing with is perfectly "necessitarian" If you're a necessitarian: that's how you r...

If cutting a path in the jungle is an example of libertarian free-will I didn't say cutting a path in the jungle is an example of free will.. This is what I said... You are in a jungle with a machete. You look around. You decide where the best place is to cut. The decision is based on the environme...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:39 amNote this 3rd meaning of 'feel'.
feel = have a belief or impression, especially without an identifiable reason.

Noted.