I wouldn't get into a conversation with such a person. The principle of phenomenal conservatism marks the beginning of intellectual inquiry. That the ...
You are not understanding the principle. First, a proof will consist of appearances. It was a point Descartes made. I can prove I exist. How? I appear...
I do not find what you are saying to be coherent. You are asking, I think, for a justification for the laws of logic. Well, I have provided one: they ...
If it appears to you that it appears to Helen that the burglar had a red hat on, and it appears to you that it appears to Sam that the burglar had a b...
A devil's advocate is still trying to show that there is reason to believe the view they are advocating for. I still do not understand what your point...
Question begging. And like so many others you confuse Socrates' position with that of a radical sceptic. Again, "to disbelieve something under circums...
No, the proposition 'it is raining and no one believes it is raining' is self-refuting, but not inconsistent with truth. For it is possible for it to ...
No, it is a fact that that 'quote' is not a quote from Socrates. It's just made up. I believe Socrates never uttered those words. I am very well justi...
Well, for one thing he does not claim to know nothing. His point is that knowing that you do not know a particular thing makes one wiser than someone ...
As I understand it, Pereboom coined the term 'hard incompatibilist' to describe his own view, which is not that free will is impossible but rather tha...
But what Socrates says there is not at all equivalent to "the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing". The simple fact is that Socrates never sa...
No, self-refutation doesn't require inconsistency, at least not in the content of what has been asserted. If I sincerely say "it is raining, but nobod...
That is false. It is self-refuting. Note, that claim - that the burden of proof is upon the proponent - is itself something you (or someone) is propos...
Yes. I am personally agnostic on whether compatibilism or incompatibilism is true, as I think the more important ingredient is possession of an immate...
How? (Not denying that he did this, just wondering how). For something to be illusory, it must appear to be the case. So, in order for free will to be...
How are the views up there on your high horse? (You're competing in the condescension finals again this year, I take it?). Do you have anything philos...
Er, no. First, to be a member of that club you need to 'lack' expertise yet think you have it. I have expertise. Gobs of it. You don't. See? (the answ...
Ignorant as ever. Compatibilism is not the view that we have 'limited free will' (it is the view that free will is 'compatible' with causal determinis...
I believe we do have free will. Indeed, I think there is nothing we or anyone else among us (with the exception of God, of course) can do to rob us of...
It seems to me that you still are. Here is my argument: You need to deny a premise. You haven't done that. Rather you say this: Clearly that is not wh...
Circular definitions are correct. So, here's my definition of bread. Bread is bread. That's correct. Bread really is bread. But it's totally unhelpful...
Er, yes. It's all over the place. I mean, 'faulty' would be kind. I just can't follow that at all. My view is really not hard to understand. I am argu...
That's a circular definition as you've included the word 'determined'. Anyway, no premise in my argument asserted the truth of determinism. And no pre...
I do not understand your objection to my objection. I understand moral absolutism to be the view that moral truths are fixed across time and space. So...
An object exists with aseity when it exists but has not been brought into being. Thus, objects that exist with aseity have always existed. They do not...
No, if we are morally responsible, then we have free will. It is possible to have free will and not be morally responsible (that would be the case if,...
I am having trouble following you. First, I haven't the faintest idea what all those symbols and letters mean. Not sure you do either! Anyway, they're...
But you earlier agreed that it was deductively valid. I did not invoke necessity. Here is the argument: 1. If I have come into existence, then I have ...
Actually no. But even if that is what his experiment did, I did that too: red tomato. Now you're thinking of a red tomato. I knew you would. See? We -...
You're misusing terms. What you're calling 'moral relativism' seems actually to be 'moral nihilism' a.k.a. 'moral error theory'. I am a moral relativi...
I think you have missed the point, which is that Libet's experiments tell us precisely nothing about free will. They do not imply we lack it, or that ...
No, you're assuming we do not have aseity, not showing it. If the aseity argument cannot be refuted - and as yet I see no grounds for thinking any of ...
How is it implausible? It clearly 'is' the case if you have come into being. There's no way around it. Imagine we're making a soup. We start with a sa...
yes, but that is not equivalent to this: I did not say that proper philosophers never generate catchy maxims. I said that populist 'philosophers' will...
Yes, but the only value of inviting a 'professional' philosopher is surely that they are good at philosophy, as opposed to good at making money out of...
He doesn't express the view I attributed to him in that piece. But it is attributed to him by John Martin Fischer in his article "Recent Work on Moral...
Yes, that sounds correct about Strawson. When it comes to Van Inwagen, I am not so sure. You're focussing on Van Inwagen's incompatibilism. However, I...
Yes, but you need to be good - really good - at philosophy to be a professional academic. So being an academic is a sign of quality. By contrast, to e...
Like I say, this argument - 1. Brain events cause mental events 2. Therefore brain events are mental events shares a property with you. I don't click ...
Comments