Talk:Incompatibilism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

newly split[edit]

This page is also newly seperated from Compatibilism and incompatibilism. I have not edited this one as much as Compatibilism yet.-Tesseract2 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political "Libertarianism" is capitalized.[edit]

Because the general outlook or world view of libertarianism often crosses paths with the Libertarian (political) Party (the LP, lp.org) (which includes Objectivism (Ayn Rand) among most Libertarians) views, which are also occasinally called called Libertarianism, the convention of using "big L" Libertarians and "small L" libertarians is in common usage among people who commonly discuss Libertarian philosophy (often not knowing it is based in Objectivism). Basically, the Lp is the political arm of Objectivism, but many Libertarians are unaware of their philosophical founders. But Libertarian membership drastically deflated (due to an LP platform plank rejection re: child labor/child prostitution,) in the last 15? years. Being homeless, the Libertarians went elsewhere or seek new homes. I mention all this in part to illustrate how critical this capitalization convention is to coherent communication.

In short, the convention is to capitalize political parties and their followers: Democrat, Demoratic, Democrats, Green, etc. Even, "Republicanism?" I notice this sentence: "...argument against Libertarian incompatibilism." Because the wiki article "Free will" is now tagged as "Part of a series on (political) Libertarianism," and I'm ignorant of this topic, I left the big L. Is that right? Thanks!
--68.127.90.194 (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to engage with any word that ends -ism, as the real value in any idea exists independently of any -ism label that is correctly (or incorrectly) attached to the idea. Possibly there is an exception to be made for 'schism', since polarising argument seems often to be the inevitable consequence of any -ism label gaining traction in a genuine discussion. For a real thinker, -ism words are a sometimes-convenient shorthand; you need to do your 'thinking' in longhand. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

protest re. proliferation of -isms[edit]

While I appreciate that philosophers are an unruly and disputatious clan, is it really helpful to assist in the perpetuation of a pair of 'memes' such as this? People who believe (dare I say 'know') that it is possible to try to understand the world that we live 'in' without bowing to this or that philosopher, also know that we have to live 'with' such terms as 'determinism'. Unfortunately, -ism words are often used as terms of abuse, rather than just as convenient labels. I admit to being curious that such a term has even been coined, and have noted that 'compatibilism' is an -ism that Daniel Dennett (apparently) is willing to acknowledge. All the same, is it, in 'reality', Wiki-compatible with the concept of Wiki-notability? Just asking . . . 86.17.152.168 (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is representing truly, Robert Kane has built a career on misconstruing (will-fully?) the consensus view of what the "determinism" label implies. I have to admit that "character-forming decision" is a wonderfully esoteric concept with which to play, but it seems to me that "the God delusion" is a more USEFUL meme. Free will is not an illusion, it is a delusion; but it is a delusion that we all are subject to, to some degree.

Causality denial[edit]

AFAIK this should be removed, due lack of citation for a long time:

«Absolute chance, a possible implication of quantum mechanics and the indeterminacy principle, implies a lack of causality[citation needed]. This possibility often disturbs those who assume there must be a causal and lawful explanation for all events.» — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.165.88 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incompatibilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091211132936/http://www.unc.edu:80/~knobe/Nichols-Knobe.pdf to http://www.unc.edu/~knobe/Nichols-Knobe.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]