This is a thread about another topic, please do not smudge this thread with imagined fudges. Your version of ‘compatibilism’ I propose to call confusionism (not Confucianism). I won’t discuss with you in this thread, and surely not about this exact same point again and again. Start reading real books about these matters. If you think an academic study is not worth more than googling your way through the internet, then I possibly have nothing to say to you anymore, except maybe as a philosophy teacher.
This is condecending bullshit GdB.
Once you have no argument you suggest I read a book, utter tosh.
It’s simple and no reading will change the fact.
100% determinism is simply obviously necessitarianism.
We are interested in mutually exclusive possibilities, one of which does happen.
Now if one happens how could the other happen??
They can’t both happen, so it has to be possible for the one that does happen to not happen and for the other to happen instead.
How GdB, How?
You’re just being ridiculous and covering up by saying go do some reading.
Look Kripke was not a determinist, he didn’t have to defend compatibilism.
Given the initial conditions we could not do otherwise
So how could we?
One answer, if they had been appropriately different we would have done.
how could they have been appropriately different?
One answer, indeterminism.
It’s that simple, you’ve become convinced of something simply illogical and probably will remain in denial for the rest of your life.
Fact is you are obviously wrong and I press because it’s important for people not to be fooled.