Search results for query: *

Yes. The two ideas aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It depends on what you mean by "truly unjust". There's no reason why one should not use the words "truly unjust" to communicate one's strongly held disposition that people should never be enslaved.

I'm afraid your point escapes me.

Just a tad uncharitable.

I think the preceding 2 paragraphs contain the essence of what's being argued: As I've said, I find this all to be quite self-evident. If you're unpersuaded then we're simply in disagreement.

To me, the truth of the quote is self-evident. However, if you're sceptical then this article explains it perfectly: The Einstein Quote Explained

I'm not sure what your point is. I don't want to put words in your mouth but you seem to be implying that science is not "the refinement of everyday thinking" although I'm not following your implied logic.

I know you did. I just think it's an unnecessary distraction in a discussion fraught with uncharitable readings of the compatibilist position.

I don't read peacegirl's posts. In posts #155 and #158 you appear to be the one raising the subject of quantum indeterminacy . If I'm mistaken, I apologise.

If your compatibilism is at all dependent on contingencies that have anything to do with QM indeterminacy then you're not a compatibilist. If your compatibilist beliefs hold true independently of any possible quantum indeterminacy then why would you even bring the subject up? You surely...

Then why bring it up? You're just confusing the issue.

There was a similar reaction back in July when anybody on this forum dared suggest Biden should drop out from the presidential race because of very obvious mental/physical decline.

Thanks. I don't think there's any more I can usefully add.

This is unrelated to the point I've been making. I've been posting in response to peacegirl's original claim that "compatibilism is contradictory, by definition" (a claim which you appear to support). It's not an appeal to authority. I'm not claiming compatibilism is true because 59% of...

Ok. It seems that peacegirl and DBT really do believe that 59% of professional philosophers have failed to notice that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition". If true this would be quite remarkable bearing in mind that one would expect philosophers, of all people, to be extremely...

I'm not getting through. If your understanding is that compatibilism is "contradictory by definition" then it's not the same compatibilism that is accepted/leant towards by the majority of professional philosophers. You are arguing a against a strawman version of compatibilism.

Ok I'll try to spell it out. It follows from your belief that compatibilism is "contradictory, by definition" that you must also believe that 59% of professional philosophers are incapable of recognising (or simply failed to notice) the contradictory nature of compatibilism. This isn't a...

I think you missed my point. If you honestly believe that 59% of professional philosophers ""Accept or lean towards" something which you believe is, "contradictory, by definition", then it's almost certainly the case that you and the philosophers are not talking about the same thing.

The 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 59% of professional English-speaking philosophers "Accept or lean towards" compatibilism. I think there's an extremely high probability that your understanding of compatibilism is flawed.

Isn't this just a tad misogynistic? Especially a female