Re: A revolution in thought
His explanations are fallacious and tautological. I have given you all this time to demonstrate that there is no circulatory, and that the modal fallacy was not committed, and you've refused to even try.
Additionally, the premise "man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction which is why his will is not free" is not at all testable or measurable or provable at all. I don't even find it useful in any way, because I think the whole free will debate is useless outside of theology.
So, no, there is nobody I respect that can make that premise meaningful or unsilly to me.
|