|
|
|
|
|
by adjkant
2199 days ago
|
|
> When people say that free will exists, they're saying that there is coherent notion of control over one's actions that grounds moral responsibility. My top level post very much says the same thing, I agree. However, that definition has little to nothing to do with randomness or determinism is very much a mystery to me. When I say "formalized" free will here, I understand that there's much debate on definition, as I exactly said in the post about begging the question of definition. However, the content of these and other free will arguments show that the one many approach is not the one you just supplied. I think both definitions have importance, but the existence of each has different implications. You seem to have the issue opposite of many formalized philosophers - getting stuck on definition, but on the "practical" one. We're in agreement on that one but using different words. But you're writing off the importance of the "formal", or at least the one this writing implies. |
|
[1] Around 60% Compatibilist, https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl