Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I told you that because we can make choices, it resembles compatibilism, but this does not mean we have free will. This is an important distinction if you're going to understand the two-sided equation.
|
If it meets the definition of compatibilist free will (as it does), then
by definition that means we have 'free will' of that sort. What part of this incredibly simple point do you not understand?
Also, I asked you to reply to my last post on determinism which you have not done. I certainly didn't ask you to repeat the same copypasta I've already read, and which doesn't help at all. (Here's a free tip for copypasting: If you find yourself posting multiple quoted paragraphs and then highlighting in bold only certain particularly relevant sections,
then you should only have posted the bits in bold.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Cutting and pasting is hearing the explanation from the author himself. Of course it will answer your question but if you need further clarification I will try to help you in my own words.
|
No, it isn't an explanation, and it isn't an answer to my question. Lessans' own words will not tell me what his arguments
presuppose about conscience, nor can they tell me why I should agree with those unargued-for presuppositions. You clearly don't even understand the nature of what I'm asking you to explain (or of what Lessans actually said). All his words will show is what he thought to be true about conscience. They will not give us any reason to believe that he was actually right.
What has to be true about conscience for his argument to work, and why should anyone believe it?