A cloud of confusion remains on analytical philosophy about determinism and indeterminism, compatibilism and incompatibilism. In Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia (Portuguese journal of Philosophy), Christina Schneider, of university of Munich, wrote: 

«First: There is the problem of determinism versus indeterminism. If the world is deterministic, it is held, then there is no place for alternatives, so wheter or not the result of any human deliberation, is manifested in the "extra-mental" sphere is independent of deliberation. What happens in the world is fixed once and forever from the very begining. This is the root of the disagreement between compatibilists and imcompatibilists. Compatibilists say that indeterminism is not indispensable ingredient for freedom, incompatibilists opt for the contrary. (...) If the world is indeterministic an option to be taken seroiusly, then - so van Inwagen argues - the manifestation of any deliberative process is a pure matter of chance.» (Christina Schneider, Freedom is not a Mistery, in Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia, Tomo 3, Fascículo 4, pagina 1274, Braga, 2007; the bold is put by me).

The first confusion of Christina Schneider is about what  is deterministic world: on saying that «If the world is deterministic, it is held, then there is no place for alternatives» she makes a remarkable error. Deterministic world is not a world subject to an absolute fatalism. In deterministic world there is the free will, the deliberation of bilions of human beings and, hence, there are always alternatives, at least apparently. In fact,  the inteligence and capacity of deliberation and free action of man are indeterministic factors to be attached to the deterministic character of the natural world.  There are, always, alternatives because of men´s deliberations and actions: for example, a government may choose to install a nuclear plant in a region of Portugal or Spain (determinism of nuclear energy) or to not install it (absence of determinism of nuclear radiation). Considering both cases, there will be different results in each one. So, it is wrong to state about deterministic world, as Christina Schneider does, that  «What happens in the world is fixed once and forever from the very begining». She confuses determinism with fatalism. On fatalism, there are no alternatives, on determinism there are various alternatives for the same situation or being.

The second confusion of Christina is the confusion on compatibilism and incompatibilim. She argues:«Compatibilists say that indeterminism is not indispensable ingredient for freedom, incompatibilists opt for the contrary.» This is wrong. What is compatibilism? It is any formal theory that articulates two entities or two different ways of being. The so-called soft determinism is a compatibilism because reconciles or harmonizes free will and determinism biophysical (Example: a giant wave in the sea approaches but I am free to shove it or not). The so-called libertarianism (free will and absence of byophisical determinism)  is also a compatibilism - «Oh, heresy!», claim analytical philosophers  - because it reconciles the human free will with the freedom of biophysical nature, without fixed  and necessary laws.

What is indeterminism? Indeterminism is the absence of necessity, the existence of  chance, random. There are two kinds of indeterminism: in human´s minds and in biophysical nature. Free will is a part of indeterminism although no analytical philosopher conceives this. It is impossible to exist free will without indeterminism. The essence of free will is indeterminism.

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)