/lit/ - Literature

>>13192543
everybody shut the fuck up it's actually determinism which doesn't exist because free will instantiates it as a linguistic construct to support itself semantically

does free will not exist or determinism not exist? on the one hand 'free' will implies something inherently wrong n even self-refuting, as nothing escapes the processes that instantiate it, free will cannot escape that which ultimately produces it... it is caused and therefor not truly free.
One might say, oh but, certainly the notion of free will doesn't refer to this at all (that wills are not caused), and refers instead to the view that wills are caused yet exhibit some precedence over the material realm that allows them to direct themselves perhaps not unconditionally but rather as befits itself within its own limitations and contexts... now we're converging n the terms determinism and free will are losing their meaning altogether... they only seem to be linguistic sublimations of our own perception of ourselves... the idea that anything is free is bunk because everything is caused... the idea that anything is determined is bunk because it subsumes that anything could have been free... the idea that they are compatible is bunk because it implies a little bit of both...
if compatibilism asserted that free will is expressed through deterministic processes, then how is it free? and in what way is it determined? compatibilism asserts the inefficacy of those categories themselves, or does it? i dont know anymore

someone wanna explain this to me who's not a complete tool?