Anti-Climacus

WELL: for Kevin, a brief explanation on two-aspect compatibilism:

it seems like there is either determinism in the universe, or a hybrid of determinism and indeterminism. Either of these should entail no free will, because either entails that we either have no control over what we do, or else we couldn't do otherwise than what we do (this is 'theoretical reasoning').

it also seems like there are some things we ought to do in certain situations; ought implies can, so we could do otherwise than we in fact do (this is practical reasoning).

now, it looks like theoretical reasoning should give us no reason to believe we're agents. the two-aspecter will contend practical reasoning can (and does) give us reason to suspect we're agents*. The reason is that, the sense in which 'could've done otherwise' is used by each is different--because they have different purposes (to describe/explain the world, and to tell us what we want to do, respectively). There's a whole mess that goes afterward that allows you to cash the idea involved out, but I'll avoid getting into that (for now).

Anyway, I imported the terms 'inflationary/deflationary' from epistemology because nothing in the theory requires any sort of mental life above the ability to generate counterfactuals (and even that may not be required for the agent, strictly speaking), and you can read just about any level of complexity in the mind into this particular thesis (I think) unproblematically.

*exactly how much agency you think is necessary for responsibility will change your judgment on how successful two-aspect theory is, but I think it all cashes out rather well in most instances. We don't need people to be fully in charge of every aspect of their decisions (it'd be odd to consciously control hormone secretions, for example), just enough so that we can reasonably attribute moral praise and blame.