Why do people think that our will following causal factors means it's somehow unfree? Compatibilism > hard determinism.

I don't think it's a question that really has any practical implications or that most people even think about. Freedom that actually exists doesn't even require free will, fucking Bakunin was a determinist.

>>1256194
>fucking Bakunin was a determinist.

Really? I didn't even know he touched on the subject as a philosopher, I thought he was entirely a political philosopher.

>>1256186
Compatibilism is basically just semantics. The idea of free will being some ontological entity is nonsense. It's literally not even coherent.

>>1256201
>Who are right, the idealists or the materialists? The question once stated in this way hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history.
that's the first paragraph of God and the State

>>1256176
Because free will isn't a statement about causality, it's a statement about meaning. You're categorically mistaken to conflate the realms of meaning and causality.

>>1256207
I'm not seeing the determinism in that, maybe I'm just dumb. I'm not contesting your interpretation, I just think I don't get it.

>>1256222
>We, who are Materialists and Determinists, just as much as Marx himself
I was thinking of that, but when I posted before I couldn't remember where it was from.

>>1256186
>volition of the human mind is an illusion
>free will is real
those are not compatible.