He believes that they have encountered a semantic problem. By confusing the meaning of the words, they’ve arbitrarily defined free will. He explains how easily a definition can be mistakenly construed. For instance, if one believes that the definition of a man is a “five-legged animal.” And suppose they ventured out into the world to rightly observe that five-legged animals do not exist, furthermore denying the existence of men. Concluding that men do not exist is merely a fact based on an incorrect definition. Similarly, philosophers have assumed the incorrect definition of free will then finding that there’s nothing that coincides with the definition leading to the denial of its
He believes that they have encountered a semantic problem. By confusing the meaning of the words, they’ve arbitrarily defined free will. He explains how easily a definition can be mistakenly construed. For instance, if one believes that the definition of a man is a “five-legged animal.” And suppose they ventured out into the world to rightly observe that five-legged animals do not exist, furthermore denying the existence of men. Concluding that men do not exist is merely a fact based on an incorrect definition. Similarly, philosophers have assumed the incorrect definition of free will then finding that there’s nothing that coincides with the definition leading to the denial of its