Whyever not? The main difference is in areas of "natural philosophy". Other things, such as logic, moral philosophy, and the like, would be just as applicable. Of course, anyone is free to say "IMG, modus ponens isn't valid, and unreconstructed Millite Utilitarianism is the definitive ethical system", but the rest of us are free to giggle quietly in one corner. ;-)
> And for that matter, I don't have a lot of time for this sort of
> argument in modern philosophy either, as I consider it fundamentally a
> confusion of terms - whatever 'free will' is, its fairly pointless to
> define it in such a manner that no one ever has it.
That's not what philosophy does, though. It tries to formalise our "intuitive" notions of free will, and asks the question if this is compatible with the conception of the universe in line with modern, and not so modern, physics, and science in general. Determinists get the answer "no". Others, starting with pretty much the same definition, manage to get different answers. If currently the dualists and the compatiblists are having their Platonic arses kicked, it's somewhat revisionist to blame the _definition_.
If Gloranthan cosmology isn't deterministic, then the problem doesn't arise in quite the same form, of course. Is it? How the heck would I know? To be fair, how would Greg, come to that?
Apologies if this is drifting off-Gloranthan. However, I didn't _want_ to post this message, quantum mechanical hyper-determinism in this one of the Many Worlds _made_ me do it. Bummer.
Slainte,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #479
Powered by hypermail