Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And for anyone new, when my father says: He was compelled, "of his own free will," it is not a contradiction. This was spelled out in Chapter One. Doing something "of one's own free will" in this context only means "of one's own desire". It does not mean that my actions were free in the sense of "could have done otherwise".
|
Actually, I (Flo is my aunt) do understand what he meant -- it's just that YOU DON'T understand what he meant.
Doing something in accordance with one's desires, while not being able to have "done otherwise" is called FUCKING COMPATIBILIST FREE WILL, you goddamned dummy. How many times did spacemonkey attempt to explain compatibilism to you? How many times did you whine that compatibilism is impossible?
Yet, here we have above -- your own explanation -- of what Lessans meant, and it's fucking compatibilism. |
Don't believe me? Go show what you just wrote to  Slattery, and watch him tell you that Lessans was, in fact, a compatibilist -- the very thing you have spent years denying is a valid proposition! |
Slattery would not say that because that is not what it is. The only thing that it is even remotely akin to compatibilism (which is a stretch) is the fact that nothing can compel someone to do what he doesn't want to do. Determinism states that we have no control, and that our choices are decided for us before we even make them, which implies that we can't change our destiny which has already been written in stone. That is not the definition of "greater satisfaction." A person is free (you can use the term "free" if it's qualified) in that sense because nothing (not even an antecedent event) can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That is the other side of the two-sided equation which you haven't cared to understand.