Quote:
Originally Posted by durkadurka33
Wtf does this even mean? And then...why? Without presupposing determinism, how is it that you can take this position?
Imagine two worlds.
World 1: It is temporally possible for David to take his degree in either Philosophy or in Accounting. He takes his degree in Philosophy.
World 2: There are no temporal possibilities, save one - David takes his degree in Philosophy.
Care to enlighten me on the difference between the worlds? As far as I can tell,
even David has no way of knowing which world he is in. Because the two worlds are exactly the same. He sees the same things. He believes the same things. He expects the same things, cares about the same things, knows the same things. He
experiences the same things. He lives the same life, regardless of which world he's in. The two Daves
are the same. As are the two worlds.
It makes zero difference.
Quote:
Bingo: that's the incompatibility thesis. You sound surprised. The incompatibility thesis holds that this type of possibility is necessary for choice and that choice/responsibility are incompatible with determinism.
"Choice" is an English word. You don't get to redefine it based on your philosophical agenda. It is already defined, at least to an extent. And it's not defined based on philosophical technicalities. If you want to talk about philosophical choice, as a technical term, then fine. Depending on how you define the term, I will acknowledge that there is no philosophical choice under determinism.
But normal, everyday choice has nothing to do with temporal possibility. If you don't believe me, grab a dictionary.