tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (07/31/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** From postnews Wed Jul 31 16:29:29 1985 > > The libertarian assents to claim (2) -- and so is also an "incompatibilist"-- > > but rejects claim (1) in favor of an acausal will, or something of the sort. > > Please stick to claims that are relevant and that you can > support. Perhaps some libertarians fit your claim, but I > don't, and having met many libertarians I still can say I > haven't met one who does. I did not observe anyone who > brought up libertarians or libertarianism during the > argument on free will. Whatever your purpose was, it could > not have been honorable, or anything of the sort. The rest > of your posting did not deserve your drivel. > > David Hudson There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I accept responsibility for it. The term "libertarian" as it is used in the philosophical dispute means "incompatibilist who rejects a deterministic account of human action", or something of the sort. The term "libertarian" is also used to refer to a particular political/economic philosophy, in which individualism and laissez-faire are important concepts. The two senses of "libertarian" HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. I believed that my use of the word "libertarian" would not cause confusion, since the context was a debate on the nature and possibility of free will. I was evidently mistaken. I don't know if my purpose was honorable, but it sure wasn't political. It should be obvious that not all libertarians (my sense) are libertarians (Hudson's sense). That libertarians believe that determinism and free will are incompatible and the will is exempt from causal necessity is neither irrelevant nor a lie. I hope that not too many were misled by my terminology. Todd C. Moody {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody Philosophy Dept. St. Joseph's U. Philadelphia, PA 19131