@tomr,
tomr wrote:
Quote:To say that an event is determined is to say that it is caused.
Okay. That makes sense you are defining determinism by causation.
Quote:But not all events that are caused are compelled.
I'm not sure why this is but you give an example. Maybe it will clarify the above.
Quote:For example, an eclipse is caused, but an eclipse is not compelled.
So an eclipse is caused and causation can now be equated with determinism. But the eclipse is not compelled. So being compelled is something that we do not apply to the eclipse. For what reason? The examples continue...
Quote: As far as the actions of people are concerned, the suggestion of my friend that a visit a restaurant may cause me to visit that restaurant, but it does not compel me to visit the restaurant. I did[n't] have to visit the restaurant unless I wanted to. So I was not compelled to do so, although I was caused to do so by my friend's suggestion.
So by saying "as far as the actions of people are concerned" I am drawn to think maybe it is only people that can be compelled. So compelled is the way to say a person has been caused to act a certain way. Since we do not want to say determined to act or just caused because this is for everything non-human like the eclipse. Is this what you mean?
But then you go on with the restaurant example to say your friend suggests you go to a restaurant but that does not compel you to visit the restaurant. So suggestions do not compel. Then you say you do not have to go unless you want to. So you are never compelled unless you do not want to do something, and since "compelled" is the human version of determined, a human being that wants something is not determined but acting freely.
And just when I think I understand, you say that although you were not compelled to go to the restaurant, you were caused to by your friends suggestion. I thought we already equated something being caused with being determined. You do say "that to say an event is determined is to say that it is caused." But maybe this does not apply to people or are you using cause here just to show there was a reason or... Look how frustrating it is to understand what you are saying. I have read your restaurant examples again and again. You have got be more clear in what you are saying. Just use the common definitions please.
So being compelled is something that we do not apply to the eclipse. For what reason?
Because something can be compelled to do something only if it wants not to do it, but eclipses don't have wants at all. Therefore eclipses cannot be compelled to do anything.
So compelled is the way to say a person has been caused to act a certain way.
Not caused to act a certain way. But caused to act in a way that the person does not want to act (which we call, "constraint") Or, cause not to act in a way that the person does want to act (which we call "restraint") So, in general, a person is compelled when the person is either constrained or restrained.
I am sorry you are confused, but I think that what I am saying is quite clear. It is that a person only if the actions of a person have a certain kind of cause, a compelling cause, does the person not have free will. So, if the person is caused to do what he does (which, if determinism is true, he is) but if that cause does
not compel him to do what he does, so that he could have done otherwise if he had chosen to, or if he had wanted to do otherwise, then he has acted of his own free will.
So, if for instance I am compelled at the point of a gun to hand over my wallet to a thug, then I did not hand over my wallet of my own free will. But if, on the other hand, I give some alms to a beggar on the street, and am caused to do so by pity for the beggars plight, then although my action is caused, since it is not compelled, I have acted of my own free will.
In fact, if you come to think of it, when I assert that I did something of my own free will (or words to that effect) I am usually
denying that I was compelled to do what I did. That is how we used the expression, "I did it of my own free will".
There now, even if you do not agree with me, you should now, at least, understand what it is I am saying. (And I don't think I used one uncommon expression, did I? In fact, I don't know what uncommon expressions you thought I used in my earlier post).