6 ms·

Ok, I didn't know what compatiblism was, but I asked Claude, and now curious if you can you expand on your thesis? I'm interested as someone who is dipping his

Ok, I didn't know what compatiblism was, but I asked Claude, and now curious if you can you expand on your thesis? I'm interested as someone who is dipping his toes into philosophy.

amichail 1y ago
It's claiming that people without genuine free will can still be morally responsible. It does this by redefining genuine free will into something that isn't free will but still calling it free will. Why would anyone want to study philosophy further after hearing this nonsense?
- techpineapple 1y ago
  me? I don't understand, aren't there all sorts of different schools of philosophy and ways of looking at the world? Wouldn't studying philosophy help me find counter-examples that may expand my worldview? Compatibilism is probably my default position, but studying philosophy I may have that position challenged, isn't that the goal of studying any field of inquiry? To engage with new ideas?
  - amichail 1y ago
    What compatiblism is saying would be ok in an academic context if they define a new term like consistency instead of hijack free will to mean something else entirely. But even then, consistency of behavior in a deterministic world would not lead to the possibility of moral responsibility unless you also hijack that term and give it a different meaning.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  > Why would anyone want to study philosophy further after hearing this nonsense? Why should one single philosophical idea cause someone to reject the entire approach to understanding? Philosophy is full of different, sometimes competing, ideas of which this is just one. Rejecting an entire field of study because of one hypothesis seems like rejecting all of literature because of a single book you didn't like.
  - amichail 1y ago
    It shows they have very poor peer review.
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      I don't see how it shows that at all, but even if it does, I don't see how that counters what I said. Just because a person disagrees with one philosophical idea doesn't imply that all of philosophy is worthless.
      - amichail 1y ago
        Compatibilism is not an obscure topic in philosophy. Its popularity reflects poorly on the field. If you read about it, you will notice they are redefining terms such as free will and moral responsibility to mean something else entirely. And in so doing, they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility.
        JohnFen 1y ago
        Hmmm, I suspect that you and I may not agree as to what the purpose of philosophical studies is. It's a very different purpose than that of the sciences. I personally don't agree with most of what compatibalism posits, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with philosophy as a field of study. > they are trying to gaslight the general public Who is "they"? And I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the general public have never even heard of compatibilism, so are hardly being "gaslit" by it.
        amichail 1y ago
        Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. Scientists should stop pretending that it does. Scientists who say they don't understand compatibilism should say what they really think about it (e.g., that it is nonsense or an attempt at gaslighting).
- rifty 1y ago
  I'm not sure a lack of a standard interface representing meanings when they are clearly defined and used consistently within the context of a specific view is going to be the end of the world for people interested in philosophy and exploring concepts. Word's meanings matter, but words aren't the point per se. That's not to say I disagree with the criticism to reuse free will. I don't feel things like coercion-less actions regardless of a casual environment is best represented by 'free'+'will' even if the original definition didn't pre-exist; even if it might present an argument for responsibility on a specific person to still apply. Annoying? Perhaps. But personally I just don't believe most people see philosophy through such a monolithic lens that they would be like, "compatiblists did something annoying so Kant on another topic will have to go unread".

Ok, I didn't know what compatiblism was, but I asked Claude, and now curious if you can you expand on your thesis? I'm interested as someone who is dipping his toes into philosophy.

amichail 1y ago

It's claiming that people without genuine free will can still be morally responsible. It does this by redefining genuine free will into something that isn't free will but still calling it free will. Why would anyone want to study philosophy further after hearing this nonsense?

techpineapple 1y ago
me? I don't understand, aren't there all sorts of different schools of philosophy and ways of looking at the world? Wouldn't studying philosophy help me find counter-examples that may expand my worldview? Compatibilism is probably my default position, but studying philosophy I may have that position challenged, isn't that the goal of studying any field of inquiry? To engage with new ideas?
- amichail 1y ago
  What compatiblism is saying would be ok in an academic context if they define a new term like consistency instead of hijack free will to mean something else entirely. But even then, consistency of behavior in a deterministic world would not lead to the possibility of moral responsibility unless you also hijack that term and give it a different meaning.
JohnFen 1y ago
> Why would anyone want to study philosophy further after hearing this nonsense? Why should one single philosophical idea cause someone to reject the entire approach to understanding? Philosophy is full of different, sometimes competing, ideas of which this is just one. Rejecting an entire field of study because of one hypothesis seems like rejecting all of literature because of a single book you didn't like.
- amichail 1y ago
  It shows they have very poor peer review.
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    I don't see how it shows that at all, but even if it does, I don't see how that counters what I said. Just because a person disagrees with one philosophical idea doesn't imply that all of philosophy is worthless.
    - amichail 1y ago
      Compatibilism is not an obscure topic in philosophy. Its popularity reflects poorly on the field. If you read about it, you will notice they are redefining terms such as free will and moral responsibility to mean something else entirely. And in so doing, they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility.
      - JohnFen 1y ago
        Hmmm, I suspect that you and I may not agree as to what the purpose of philosophical studies is. It's a very different purpose than that of the sciences. I personally don't agree with most of what compatibalism posits, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with philosophy as a field of study. > they are trying to gaslight the general public Who is "they"? And I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the general public have never even heard of compatibilism, so are hardly being "gaslit" by it.
        amichail 1y ago
        Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. Scientists should stop pretending that it does. Scientists who say they don't understand compatibilism should say what they really think about it (e.g., that it is nonsense or an attempt at gaslighting).
rifty 1y ago
I'm not sure a lack of a standard interface representing meanings when they are clearly defined and used consistently within the context of a specific view is going to be the end of the world for people interested in philosophy and exploring concepts. Word's meanings matter, but words aren't the point per se. That's not to say I disagree with the criticism to reuse free will. I don't feel things like coercion-less actions regardless of a casual environment is best represented by 'free'+'will' even if the original definition didn't pre-exist; even if it might present an argument for responsibility on a specific person to still apply. Annoying? Perhaps. But personally I just don't believe most people see philosophy through such a monolithic lens that they would be like, "compatiblists did something annoying so Kant on another topic will have to go unread".