Talk:Libertarianism (metaphysics)

message: If you don't understand WP:Original research, please read that article. (In short, Do NOT include your own personal opinions or formulations of the view points.) Also read WP:Reliable sources if you need to figure out what sources can be used as references, and what cannot, especially as far as self-published sources is concerned.
The proper way to structure it would be:
*List the foremost individuals, historically and currently, and a short summary of their views with a couple of sources. (I deleted a couple people who did not have articles; put them back in when you find a source that their views are relevant.)
*If there are authors who summarize, compare and contrast, the views of several of these people, and/or several minor people, then summarize what that/those authors have to say. Include page numbers if it's a book and if something is very controversial, feel free to quote in the text and/or in the footnote. 
* Give appropriate weight to each person, not putting in 6 paragraphs about some relative unknown you agree with and one paragraph on Nozick or someone of equal weight. (See WP:NPOV.)
*  If it sounds like I'm lecturing, I have found that libertarians sometimes forget the importance of contract (the nearly explicit one with wikipedia) when editing wikipedia and keep asserting that the free speech issue should triumph, sometimes leading to their being blocked. (I can think of a couple high profile examples.) The rules may not be perfect, but work to change the consensus on them if you disagree. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another guideline: dont confuse Libertarianism (politics) with Libertarianism (metaphysics). 1Z (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An important point to clarify when discussing the various individuals who write about Libertarianism (metaphysics), since some may be politically libertarian and others may not.  CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think politics is relevant to an article on metaphysics. Metaphsyical libertarianism is not the metaphyiscs of political libertarianism. 1Z (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that would be up to the sources; if sources tie the individual's politics to their metaphysics, then it's relevant. If sources say individuals explicitly do not tie their politics, article should say so. If sources don't say anything, neither should the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is relevant is relevant, it could be any number of things other than politics. 1Z (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who could disagree with that? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: How to properly structure article

message: All these early discussions not relevant here need archiving and will do so hearing no dissent. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's get rid of everything prior to 2009. Even some of the 2009 stuff is probably no longer necessary, but that would give us a nice cut-off date.  Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs archiving

message: Here is N. O. Lossky's definition of free will...
Why can this not be used?
LoveMonkey (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to your question may be related to the answer to my last question in "What still needs referencing" above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: N. O. Lossky

message: Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy does not have a Libertarianism (metaphysics) article., It does not have an article to validate the colloquialism Libertarianism (metaphysics). SEP as does Rutledge holds that libertarianism is the position that people have free will and that free will is incompatible with determinism. You can search both sources and you will not find the term Libertarianism (metaphysics). 
Nor an article on it. Why because SEP and Rutledge don't have editors making up colloquialism in order to censure or edit war opinions from articles that they and their buddies own and edit war and silence people from editing from. Were as wikipedia has this very thing as this article (which should rather be part of the free will article) is a manifestation of.
LoveMonkey (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire exercise is nothing but a charade. As this online encyclopedia  states what here is called the made up term that no one can really find in a reliable source in libraries or online-"Libertarianism (metaphysics)" -is really and properly supposed to be called traditional libertarianism.. WP:OR states that wiki is not the place to publish a new term or new take on tings. Wikipedia is not a place to make innovations it is an encyclopedia not a philosophy journal.LoveMonkey (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are hard to follow. Are you saying this article should be called libertarianism and the other one Libertarianism (politics)? In nay case that is a dispute about the naming of the article, not its accuracy. 1Z (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that there should be only one just like on the Stanford, Rutledge philosophical encylopedia websites- one article (which is quite long in both resources).
But these resources do not make two separate articles and then by proxy make it so all of the sudden philosophers who are against determinism and support free will can not be called libertarians. Like Carol is pointing out above. Why, because no one in the academic world would ever and have ever called the bulk of libertarians, the name of this article. If someone supports free will against determinism they are called libertarians not metaphysical libertarians, they are called libertarians. Stanford and Rutledge has no article name or mentioning any such Libertarianism (metaphysics). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy-SEP

message: I didn't change it, for fear of it being changed back, but I noticed that the article is inconsistent. In the intro, it claims that Daniel Dennett and Galen Strawson have defended some form libertarianism. Later in the article, this doesn't appear to be so--see the section on Criticisms of Robert Kane. 
In fact, Dennett is a compatibilist and Strawson is a hard determinist. I apologize for not just changing it myself, but I didn't want it to just be switched back. 76.84.159.195 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede only says they 'discussed' it. 1Z (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is far from the case. It is perfectly possible to defend compatibiism without explicitly mentioning lib., for instance 1Z (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes exactly. So maybe like Carol stated that it now should only contain libertarians not compatiblists or determinists.LoveMonkey (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: Due to the article as a keep and consensus that the title is valid (which I disagree with). I removed the OR tag if you disagree go ahead and re-add it.LoveMonkey (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed OR tag

message: Could everybody be clear that this is effectively a new article. It would therefore be more helpful at this stage to add material rather putting the highest possible polish on the existing material. 1Z (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Construction

message: Do we still need this? Is there any issue beyond the incomplete nature of the article? 1Z (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it another week to see what gets added? If there was a response to why "N. O. Lossky" does or doesn't belong, that might make me feel more like people are committed to accuracy. (I have no opinion on it myself, since whether he's notable -- or anyone else WP:RS in regard to him  - uses phrase libertarian not clear to me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Accuracy Tag

message: There is a discussion of the deletion of Libertarianism (disambiguation) page on request of User:MutantPlatypus which is relevant to the hat note reverts of today. Feel free to comment. User_talk:MrKIA11#Deletion_of_Libertarianism_disambiguation_without_fair_warning. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I only added it because (1) there wasn't a disambig page at the time and (2) I thought it would be handy to have links pointing both directions.  The policy on this was pointed out, though, and so this article shouldn't have a hatnote to general libertarianism or to the disambiguation page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Libertarianism (disambiguation) has been restored. Per Wikipedia:Hat_note#Linking_to_a_disambiguation_page, the disambiguation should be on top. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hatnote and deleted disambiguation page

message: basically, I cant find any criticisms of frankfurt's CE so if one of you learned people could find something then that would be great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefishmonger (talk • contribs) 10:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: = Frankfurt counter examples (criticisms) 

message: The article wrongly states that metaphysical libertarianists believe in an immaterial mind or soul. You can be a metaphysical libertarian just like Ockham and believe any particular man or woman doesn't have a soul. Or you can believe that nobody has a soul. The only thing required to be consistent with Ockham is that you must arrive at this conclusion freely that people do not have a soul. Which means that you must have alternatives available in coming to conclusion about the identity of the agent. One of those alternatives may be nothing, or emptiness. For sure with many people Ockham may have gotten a feeling that they did not have a soul, that their spirit was empty. --Syamsu (talk)
:The word "soul" only appears once in the article.  I don't know what you're reading.  It also sounds like you might be describing [hard determinism], which is emphatically not libertarianism. LWizard @ 09:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  please read and understand. This change was also made on the free will wiki--Syamsu (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read, but apparently am not up to the task of  understanding what you're writing.  It's much much less clearly written than the stuff you replace. LWizard @ 21:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

text:  come on people let's have a brain! libertarians know the agent through CHOOSING. No choosing about that, then you're not a libertarian, so bleedingly obvious. That's what libertarians do, they choose.--Syamsu (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Syamsu notes, he made this change over at Free will too, and has been pushing it for at least a year against the (extremely weak) consensus of myself and the handful of other people who have deigned to comment at all on the matter. See Talk:Free_will#emphasize_how_the_agent_is_known_in_metaphysical_libertarianism for some history; there are other discussions in the archives there too, such as Talk:Free_will/Archive_8#How_free_will_is_talked_about and Talk:Free_will/Archive_8#.22Common_understanding.22_vs_the_lack_of_consensus_of_experts. I would love it if some other people would join in this conversation, please. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the recent history at Talk:Free_will I've removed Syamsu's contribution. Garamond Lethe (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasize how agent is known 

message: This phrase appears in the introduction paragraph and refers to compatibilism. The paper cited is here. The closest thing I found to evidence for the claim that cites this paper is the following paragraph:
On one standard view, Hobbes was the first philosopher in the early modern period to articulate the compatibilist view clearly. But after Hobbes, compatibilism takes off. It might not be accurate to say that compatibilism becomes the dominant position in the early modern period, but it clearly enjoys an impressive members list. The enormous success of compatibilism is something of an embarrassment for those of us who think incompatibilism is the natural commonsense position. Incompatibilists are accordingly inclined to regard compatibilists as philosophically shallow. However, when compatibilism enjoys the support of Hobbes, Locke, Leibniz and Hume, the charge of philosophical superficiality starts to seem rather less plausible. Thus we are stuck with the question, If compatibilism violates commonsense, why is it such a hit?
This proves that several well-known early modern philosophers were compatibilists, but it is a far cry from proving that "most professional philosophers" are compatibilists. The article says elsewhere, "In contemporary discussion of free will, incompatibilists self identify as the underdog (e.g., Strawson 1994; Pereboom 1995)." This, too, is not proof that compatibilism is the dominant position. Can someone point out the evidence in the work cited that supports the claim that compatibilism is the "most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers"? Otherwise, I suggest we remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmoretti (talk • contribs) 23:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right.  I've removed the statement. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The most popular position on free will amongst professional philosophers" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Libertarianism (metaphysics). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070825055350/http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014 to http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825055350/http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014 to http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified