I have enjoyed this post, and your previous post on the problem of “Free will”. I am always faced with a lack of time and inclination to answer because it is very hard to unpack ideas in a simple Facebook post. I do wish this was a conversation that could be had in person but, I also think that it is a good subject to write about. However, I am not really sure if Facebook's platform is conducive to much though provocation (personal opinion, of course).
In your previous post on “Free-Will” is was inclined to agree with some of what you posted. You also mentioned (Robert H?) Kane in your previous post. I really enjoyed reading his “A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will” book. It posed the “modern” (since the 20th Century) problems posed by
…show more content…
I have penned a simple nine page essay explaining how this argument works.
What I failed to do is take the time to also tie it in to Galen's father P.F. Strawson's explanation about why we think morality is somehow intertwined into the Free-Will argument (I would argue that it is not).
Lastly, I am fine with some form of compatibilism, as long as there is no attempt to “play” with the definition of free-will. This seems the biggest problem to me, and it is one that I think can only be solved when the associated problems of Philosophy of Language, and the metaphysics of time are solved.
I see a lot of attempts to explain Free-will but they all amount to something mystical that I am just not comfortable with. Again, I am fine leaving it mystical and just claiming I don't know. Equally, I am comfortable that determinism (in some form – whether “soft” or “hard” - depending on interpretation) has been