[net.philosophy] regarding an irrelevant lie

tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (07/30/85)

> From: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody)
> Message-ID: <1213@sjuvax.UUCP>

> Hard determinism is not a single claim; it is a pair of claims.  They are:
>      (1)  Determinism is true.  (Causal necessity determines all events.)
>      (2)  Free will and determinism are incompatible.  (That is, "free will"
>           means "choice that is exempt from causal necessity.)
> Based on these two claims, the hard determinist bows to logic and concludes
> that free will is impossible.

> 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