Why? Sorry, I really don't see how this needs to be the case?
This all just sounds like sophistry to me :D (reminds me of the ontological argument a little).
it is the subject-object relation. to be aware of an object means that something (the awareness itself) escapes that object. it itself is free from the object. take it to be the empty space in your mind in which the object appears. if this were not fundamentally an empty ('free') space, but filled
entirely with the object it views, it would
be the object, and thus not aware. the subject
is not the object. it represents an object within itself. it
reconstructs it (quite convincingly, apperantly) within itself on the basis of sensory data in recieves. as such, awareness is essential a non-being, an emptyness. when the awareness takes itself as its 'object', it becomes aware of this freedom, emptyness that it is.
Sorry, I really 'don't see' - this is not a priori to me!
it hinges on understanding my previous point; that
the subject is not the object itself. the subject
does not view the world an sich. your subjectivity itself
is not what it it is aware of. your subjectivity is not an object!
you, that what is
you, is not an object, you are a person. subject does not equal object. 'being aware' is not the same thing as 'being aware
of something'
the incompatibilist can only do maintain his position by seperaing this 'self' from a will. thus it cannot have direct influence.
Who says it would be degenerate? That's a fairly emotive word to use there!
its not used in the emotive sense, its degenerate because it can logically pertain to only one subject, instead of the usual 'all subjects'.
No. Rather than being unethical, it would be meaningless. There is however, the saying that "a horse thief is not hanged for stealing a horse, but to prevent others from doing so".
what good would a deterrent be if people have no influence on their actions?
philocybin; it may seem that way. i am however very well aware of this 'intuitional determinism'. i've been there. it has a serious problem. and im trying to point it out. this kind of 'determinism' does not really exist philosophically speaking. you will not see any self-respecting philosopher defending it like that. it is ill-defined. the position is simply not philosophically viable this way. as soon as you are able to discern your subject from your object, this 'intuitional determinism' collapses. it is completely inconsistent and contradictory. you are overlooking a fundamental categorical distinction.
also introducing something as QM would make it 'soft-determinism'. which is less riddled with the extreme consequences of hard determinism. yet it cannot really say that the introduced 'uncertainty/coincidence' is anything other then an other term for 'free will'.