Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
I read up on it. Rest assured. Different interpretation. Such is life.
Umo say he right. Me bang chest.
You simply don't know what "soft determinism" and "hard determinism" mean. To say that someone is a soft determinist is not to say he is not a fully fledged determinist. It is to say that he believes that determinism is compatible with free will. And a hard determinist is also a fully fledged determinist. But he holds that determinism is not compatible with free will. So, the issue between the two kinds of determinist lies in whether they think that determinism is compatible with free will or not.
Quit trying to force things into black or white categories. You can try to cram that square peg into a round whole all you want, but it is not not going to fit.
The issue is not as simple as whether the determinist thinks that free will is compatible with determinism, but rather, how far stretching the belief in determinism is. The hard determinist is the strict determinist that believes in it 100% in nearly everything. The soft determinist or weak determinist is less so, but still not necessarily believe in free will.
Of course the past is pregnant with the future (Leibniz). So what? How do you distinguish between causation and determinism? Determinism, I learned, is the thesis that every event has some cause without which the event would not have occurred. And every cause is, itself, an event.
I would say determinism is the notion that there is only one possible event for a given cause or set of causes and that the future is perfectly fixed, predictable and determined by the past and current conditions..
What you seem to mean is that nothing than what did happen could have happened. But is that true? Suppose that I ordinarily walk a mile a day. But that today, I woke up late, and decided not to walk my mile. Could I not have walked my mile if I wanted to? I was in the same physical shape as yesterday. Everything was the same. So, although I did not walk my mile, I could have done so, if I had chosen to do so.
But you are mistaken. The issue between "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" is exactly whether determinism is compatible with free will. For that is exactly how those technical terms are used in philosophy.
What does "soft on determinism" mean? I think you are confusion soft and hard determinism. Else, you would not be saying what you are saying. A soft determinist is just as much a determinist as a hard determinist. The difference is in the implications for free will.
---------- Post added 12-29-2009 at 11:35 PM ----------
As far as I can tell from you the only difference between "hard determinism" and "soft determinism" is in compatibility with free will.
Other than "free will" compatibility: how do hard and soft determinism differ. Looks like sleight of hand (sophistry) to me.
I don't know why you say that. And I don't know why you use the term, "hard determinism" when all you mean is, "determinism" (whatever that is).
The question for you is why you distinguism between "hard" and "soft", since you have already decided (for yourself) that determinism is incompatible with free will. And, I don't think that is true.
The real use of the term "soft determinism" it would seem is to change the notion of "free will" and to hope no one notices, . TsoQuote:
Change it from what to what?
From the ability to "have done" or "to do" otherwise. To hold oneself and others responsible for their actions.
that which necessarily had to occur as the result of the deterministic laws of nature.
. What's an incompatibilist?
Incompatibilism is the view that determinism is incompatible with free will. Either a hard determinist, or a libertarian.