CT,
Let's remind everyone what
you said
"My biggest problem is that I have not read but so deep in philosophy past a few van tillian works, so I can't really see if your work is truly awesome or that I only think it is awesome due to my lack of philosophical depth,"
Quote:
|
Since he does not deny determinism any more than the list of Reformed folks that you posted on the previous thread, then it would be incorrect to call him a libertarian (on his own definition from said book)
|
I didn't call him a libertarian. I simply stated that his own definition defines libertarianism as a view of freedom where ought implies can. I also specifically stated that I see some
inconsistencies.
Quote:
Or Turretin:
"The foreknowledge of God implies indeed the infallibility of futurition and of the event and the necessity of the consequence, and yet does not imply coaction or violence, nor take away from the will its intristic liberty."
So Turretin is a libertarian in some areas? He asserts liberty with the rejection of PAP.
|
One could reason that way if one disregards the equivocations involved in that comparison.
Let's watch out for
word fallacies, Hermonta.
I mean, based on your view I'd have to call John Robbins a libertarian action theorist all because he was politically a
libertarian!
Or, perhaps the U.S.A has a secret agenda of promoting libertarian free will by having a Statue of
Liberty!
And, btw, Turretin did deny PAP, viz. necessity of consequence. Also, Anderson denies PAP. The discussion is on "ought implies can" and where that leads.
Quote:
|
That is the need for discussion. Hard and Impossibility are two different positions.
|
Right. I have no problem there. Just pointing out it was hard to see. Though my 6 premise syllogism seems to cut across the board.
The HCC example showed that where ever you are a hypothetical compatibilst, you have problems. You and Anderson stated you were classical compatibilists. So you have the problem at the psychological level.
Quote:
|
It really seems that on your view, a homosexual is basically doomed.
|
Why?
Quote:
|
That being put aside, there are many people who experience accidents (close to drowning, car accidents), willful evil etc (molestation) and are seriously psychologically traumatized, but still overcome and go back to "normal".
|
That may be, not the purpose of the illustration though. Furthermore, the thought experiment points out the infinite regress inherent in classical compatibilism. You have to be
able to want.
Quote:
|
They return to swimming, ride/drive in cars, get married to someone of the opposite sex and practice regular intercourse etc.
|
Never implied otherwise.
Though you seem to not understand what a "thought experiment" is.
Quote:
|
Under Dr. Anderson's Analysis, the issue would be: does a more basic level of freedom contradicted the higher level of freedom. If all levels agree then one will stay as one is. If not, the conflict will have to be resolved.
|
Dn't see how this answers anything. Is it based on your faulty analysis above?
(I see my account is still active. If Rich closes it for me again, you'll be able to respond without my response :-)