Sorry for the delay, it's way harder for me to articulate in a digestible way my instinctual reaction. Yea I suppose I'm sounding incoherent with that initial aside. It was mainly because I looked into more unrealism after this video and was like okay, this greater body of reference is not how I would view things. However his framing and argument in the piece I do agree with a lot of. I too appreciate how we're targeting a modelling of the world with our "closure." I too agree with something approximate to this subject-object relationship.

It's hard to articulate my feelings of my contradiction, the easiest layer is that nobody 100% shares the same perspective. But deeper, and why I think the "never attaining true conceptualizing of reality" aspect isn't the right approach, is that ultimately he's appealing to perfection as an enemy of good. There is like an undercurrent of shared reality that in a sense objectifies the emergent properties that human spends their limited attention on and not only that, the way we are molding our attention patterns are also undercurrent of some objective properties. And I think it's also I personally recognize I'm a hard ass about so called closure perspective, because in my field closure gets result.

I agree with the unrealist postmodern, clearly we are making best approximations of narrative realities. However I disagree with unrealisim anyway, we're just spoiled and distorted by being the dominant predator. When the wolves overcome the bunny population, do we say anything fundamental has shifted? No, the circumstances have certainly done so, but still the same game table, still the same rules. I understand the unrealist is stating we can't possibly really get "there," but can we really state that. That's why I fight so hard against human intuition, most people have no interest in teasing out what is expedience or self soothing and what is truthful and repeatable.

Right like the trolly problem is more about people not wanting to get their hands dirty rather than risking something to do some good in the world.

> conquest has served as a non-philosophical assertion.

It's not the most complicated philosophy but still one, through monopoly of force do we dictate who lives where.

Well okay, can anyone argue a sound incompatibalist viewpoint? That's as best as I can explain my perspective.

Compatibilism!

> The basis for society's legal system is founded on the idea that we need to hold people accountable for their actions,

Could contest that, that's merely an enlightenment rationalization. Mainly carceral treatment and punishment is meant to suppress destabilizing elements first and foremost.

Sure it is, by having to make an extra term, implies it needed to be clarified.

It's fairly trivial to contradict libertarian free will. If you can prove to me you don't need to breathe and don't need to crap, I'll entertain a will bound by no limitation.

> This seems quite an extraordinary claim, compatibilism has been around for centuries, it pre-dates back to the stoics, it's not some sporadic desperate invention by philosophers in reaction to scientific consensus regarding determinism.

Compatibilism is implying there exists a determinism without decision making capacity. Which never existed. It was an inadequate conceptualization that deserves no further time. We've always dealt with humans having colloquial "free will" and still continue to.

I still think compatibilism is redundant. Determinism is already compatibilism. It's just biased minds that can't accept biologically predetermined minds have a decision making apparatus, and it's all been accounted for, already, for several billion years. It's once again, philosophers, unable to easily let go the ego and linguistic sphere of their thought process.