1 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
View submission: Libertarian Free Will on trial
Discussion and debate please, not attacks.
Until you acknowledge the difference between causality and determinism it is not too likely you we understand LFW.
For example:
**Premise 1:** A free choice must be either determined by reasons (such as desires, beliefs, and values) or not determined by reasons.
Even if your syllogism is valid it won't be sound because desires beliefs and values are causes because reasons are causes. Causality is logical and reason is logical.
Therefore your premise #2 blows up. premise #3 blows up.
As a libertarian, I don't seek freedom from random. I believe I cannot have freedom without random. Most likely what confuses the determinist is that he often doesn't quite have any working knowledge of the difference between chance and necessity. I used to struggle a lot with the word random. It took me years to work that out, but once I began to look at chance and necessity I begin to undertand that the common concption of random so bogus. Therefore if you desire a discussion with me, I recommend starting here:
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/[1][2]
1: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/
2: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/
Chance is often defined as the opposite of Necessity[3].
3: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/necessity.html
Dictionary definitions refer to the fall of the dice in games of chance. Perhaps the most famous die ever cast was the one Caesar threw to decide whether to cross the Rubicon, his Roman civil war. The Latin was *iacta alea est*, from the Greek Ἀν��ρρίφθω κύβος (anerriphtho kybos - "let the cube be thrown"), which Caesar quoted in Greek. The fundamental idea was for random chance to cause a necessary and irreversible[4] future.
4: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/problems/irreversibility/
Leucippus[5] (440 B.C.E.) stated the first dogma of determinism[6], an absolute necessity.
5: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/leucippus
6: https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/dogmas/
I guess I have to give you kudos for actually trying to come up with an argument for determinism. I hesitate to say your argument is valid because it seems like some of the premises of the argument are based on the truth of other premises and I don't believe that makes a valid syllogism. In the classic syllogism, "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal" The minor premise doesn't depend on the truth of the major premise so this is a valid argument in that sense. It isn't sound unless we can prove all men are mortal and Socrates is a man.
In the post modern era gender is based on perspective and Socrates could have identified with different pronouns than his "sex" may have stipulated.
There's nothing here!