[MD] Free Will

[MarshaV]

Ron,

http://www.answers.com/topic/weasel-word    


Marsha


On Jul 31, 2011, at 1:37 PM, X Acto wrote:

> if you cant
> respond in a relevent way to the post.
> 
> take your DMB hate some place else 
> 
> I don't remember you or Steve mentioning anything about
> the terms or meanings in a philosophical context at all either
> 
> You claim not to care yet continue to post hate regardless
> 
> and Steve claims that it is a meaningless topic of discussion, similar
> to locke.
> Yet the fact remains it is a relevent topic of discussion regardless. Especially
> when we are speaking about a moral Philosophy it remains a topic for the sheer
> reason that it is dissolved by the explansion of the explanation not by a denial
> of there even needing one.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sun, July 31, 2011 12:47:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Free Will
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, Ron, I don't remember dmb's explanation addressing compatibilism.  
> Actually, I don't remember dmb presenting being much of an explanation either.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 31, 2011, at 12:19 PM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steve:
>> Why use a term when you can be nearly guaranteed to be misunderstood
>> when you use it? Who outside of the handful of people participating in
>> this forum would think you were defending the capacity to respond to
>> dynamic quality when you say people have free will? How is that
>> shorthand helpful even around here?
>> 
>> Ron:
>> Compatibilism in this context has been around for quite some time and believe 
>> it 
>> 
>> or
>> not would be understood by more than this forum. If you do a quick search on
>> the topic you find that there would not be much confusion at all in using these 
>> 
>> terms.
>>   
>> As Stanford encyclopedia writes:
>> ".1 Free Will
>> It would be misleading to specify a strict definition of free will 
>> since in the philosophical work devoted to this notion there is probably
>>   no single concept of it. For the most part, what philosophers working on 
>> this issue have been hunting for, maybe not exclusively, but centrally, 
>> is a feature of agency that is necessary for persons to be morally 
>> responsible for their conduct."
>>   
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
>>   
>>   
>> .....
> 
> 
> 
> ___



 
___