Quote:
|
No one is free in any sense, compatibilist or libertarian. If we are determined by our genetics and environment, then every action is based on an antecedent condition that renders none of our actions free.
|
That only applies if you decide that "free" equals "divorced from causality in every way".
But that is silly: only utterly random and completely solipsistic(1) choices can ever be "free" according to that definition of "free". Having any reason at all to choose something would automatically mean a choice is not free.
In fact, your version of freedom would require complete control over the universe (as far as you experience that universe) in order for someone to have it.
If you want to argue that other definitions of freedom are incorrect, then feel free to do so. So far you have simply claimed they are and left it at that: an unfortunate family trait, it seems. But in order to make your case, you would have to point out
why your definition is "correct" and why others are not, something you have been asked to do before and have failed to do. Anything else is the equivalent of saying "Is not!" with your fingers crammed into your ears.
(1) can I even use the word solipsistic in that way?