Title: Compatibilism and Incompatibilism are compatible. : philosophy
Headings: Compatibilism and Incompatibilism are compatible.
Compatibilism and Incompatibilism are compatible.
Compatibilism and Incompatibilism are compatible.
This thread is archived

Content: How can you possibly even begin to answer this if you haven't settled what you are calling the error in thinking about the debate. | Can I possibly deserve praise or blame for what I do? As I see it, we have colloquially built in notions of 'intent' or 'will' into ideas like 'deserving praise or blame'. Similarly, how you define 'will' is very likely going to inform what one thinks it means to 'do' anything. I'm curious as to what the first step would even be in trying to solve the questions you raise without settling on what 'free' and 'will' even mean. | Our specific conceptions of free will, compatibilistic or incompatibilistic, are measured against such concerns. We might have all of these concerns initially when we start the debate, in fact we almost certainly would. But when disagreement arises when people answer "Am I free of just a complicated machine?", the only way to move the discussion forward would be to answer "What do you mean by free and will?". | So a compatibilist is someone who is saying that it's possible to answer such questions in the affirmative, while still holding determinism to be true.