The GOAT of breadtube video essayists.

It's the ult of the white woman, as the joke goes.

Why do they care about the soy/woke rules of war?? I don't understand Trump sometimes.

Still, it feels remiss as a Western philosopher of the mind to not look at all into Eastern thought on this stuff. They clearly have a lot to say!

How dare you slander a woman who is essentially Rachel News in the flesh like that.

It's some of the worst shit I've ever read. Incompetent in so many ways it really baffles me.

It's so bad. But my favorite part is where it just breaks out into statistics about gun violence, like she gets possessed by the spirit of a wonk for just half a paragraph.

Yesss!! Yesss!!!!!

Please link/send!

I was trying to find some work of his that complexified the picture he presents here, and I didn't have much luck. Kind of wild that this paper and the PACP one informs so much of contemporary compatibilism. (Especially Fischer's.)

Of course, this does not mean that an addict is totally free to enact their will. But I think that we miss something if we think of addicts and ""normal"" people as being fundamentally different. Perhaps it is more of a sliding scale.

And it is precisely when we look at how and whether we secure conformity that we find choice and agency. Will we resist our urges and impulses? Will we listen to the better angels of our nature? Or will we give in to hatred, anger, resentment, etc?

And the same goes for all sorts of processes. Being alive is all about feeling urges to action! Frankfurt does say that "securing the conformity of [one's'] will" that one exercises freedom of will, but he does not seem to emphasize that *securing* is an action we must take.

If you are the kind of person who has that alignment of desires, you are free; great! But isn't most of our life spent out of alignment of our higher and lower desires/wills?

If I see a piece of cake, even if I resist eating it, I am still generally resisting. I have to put my desires in alignment.

the unwilling addict lacks freedom of the will because they have a second order desire to not want to be addicted which they cannot align with their first-order desire to take drugs. So far, so good!

But where I disagree is that, it seems, Frankfurt thinks about this desire relationship as static.

I find the whole griping of analytic vs. continental and rigor really tiring. I've plenty of rigorous and completely unnecessary analytic papers, just as I have read plenty incomprehensible and wrong-headed continental work. Take the work on its own merits; get what it is valuable out of it for you.