You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Critique of Critique
I have already refuted solipsism in the past, although I may make a publication again that specifically addresses the subject. On determinism I also have a rebuttal, unfortunately it is too long and I have not had the time to develop it yet, at least not on Steemit.
Have you managed to refute indeterminism?
I am not familiar with the term even.
Indeterminism is a tautological mix of random and non-random events.
Since random (uncaused) events and non-random (caused) events are BOTH incompatible with freewill, (and since no clever mix solves either incompatibility) you would simply need to propose some (currently unknown) third option in order to explain how freewill might be logically viable.
Although I really have a proposal, it is not necessary to propose anything new, it is only necessary to remove the obstructions of the truth to be able to see it fully.
Please demonstrate.
It is only necessary to refute determinism and indeterminism, which are human philosophical constructions, in order to see the truth as it is and entirely. That people have free will is naturally obvious.
I am not sure that free will exists.
I know it appears to be there at times. I just don't believe it is.
I am thinking that if free will existed:
face book would not work.
People would not become addicted to games or drugs.
The transference and counter transference would not work.
intermittent conditioning gone
Military, gone
how do you see things co-existing with free will?
What you say happens because people don't have self-control and discipline, it is because people don't have liberty, although they do have free will.
In other words, a naked appeal to emotion.
They are not emotions but direct knowledge.