If free will is synonymous with individuality, why not just call it individuality rather than free will?
dunno, I really don’t like using the word free will for anything, as it is a rather odd phrase and concept, my point was the man may actually have given a definition. Also you could simply invert your question “if individuality is synonymous with free will, why not just call it free will…individuality must have some other property not yet mentioned”.
I agree, he did give a definition. The question is whether it was meaningful or coherent.
I disagree that you can invert the sentence in that manner. The point is that the meaning of individuality is not in dispute, if I use the word on this forum I have an extremely high expectation that my reader will comprehend me, and we will be able to accurately communicate. Whereas the term free will is at this moment in dispute, communication is not possible via that idiom. The question then becomes, if a term that IS in dispute is precisely synonymous with a term that IS NOT in dispute, it is quite plain that we should simply use the term that allows us all the most accurate communication and all agree to use the term individuality. The two possibilities now are:
-
We forget about using the term free will, it is redundant
-
The definition of free will as given is not sufficient, or incoherent.
If Mr Roemer is unwilling to swap to the term individuality then it must mean that number 2) is the truth of the situation.