Hmm yeah, I guess it’s too hard for me to truly explain my pov. But to put it another way, while the concept of objective truths might exist in this universe, I don’t believe we could ever know them, since we’re always bound by the confines of our brains, and our perspective. Your experience and subjective opinion is just as valid is mine, I just argue that “being along for the ride” is the same as what compatibilists call “free will”. Because this “ride” isn’t one you know or can wholly predict, and it also feels the same as if it weren’t a ride. The difference is unknowable imo.

Hmm. Then let me ask you some, since I am not sure how to relate to incompatibilists. Are you at all times aware that whatever you choose to do (and chose to do) is outside of your control?? Because for the life of me I have never felt that I wasn't free in my actions. And while this might be an illusion (I am a determinist after all) I will never and don't believe I ever can be aware of how this changes anything in my life. (since I simply am not given this information)

What do you think about that ^ ?

It's not bad faith per se, it's just ignorance. But that's a bit rude since it's a "problem" with the preexisting philosophy writings as well.

Determinism ultimately means that there only is one possible future. And that all actions will inevitably lead to that future. From an outside perspective we are simply following the laws of casualty.

So “deciding to do otherwise” means creating a different future, one where you has done otherwise than what was predetermined. Idk if that makes more sense.

I honestly feel like so much of "philosophy" is just miscommunication lol.

Well, not all philosophers are very "compatible" themselves lol. But that aside, yes you might call that flavor of compatibilism, illusionism. But for the most part, I think they just have a different definition of free will. I.e. one that isn't:

• If someone acts of their own free will, then they could have done otherwise (A-C).
• If determinism is true, no one can do otherwise than one actually does (D-E).
• Therefore, if determinism is true, no one acts of her own free will (F).

Compatibilism reminds me of Absurdism, in that you're embracing "the absurd" (even though it's a slightly different absurd here lol)

Have you actually never heard the term “free will is an illusion”? I feel like it perfectly describes compatibilism. You can never escape the subjectivity of your personal perspective, objective truths might exist but they will never be known to you. Determinism might ultimately mean that your fate is inevitable, but that whole discussion is redundant since you can’t see the future. Even if it might be an illusion I do experience, and I am not omniscient so I feel free.

“Life is a game” well you’d certainly love to believe that huh!

To be honest with you I’ve never really bothered to read many of the original philosophical works on these topics, I much prefer to use sites like the stanford philosophy encyclopedia, they also have a page on compatibilism. (Many related pages as well!)

For me, compatibilism, combined with different existentialist ideas, helped me get a perspective on my own emotions and a better grasp on how to lead/control them (or in most cases, how not to be affected by them). It made me realize that no one is directly responsible for anything, so take everything with a grain of salt, and it made me, for better or for worse, get a gigantic (hidden) ego lol. I have always been pretty content with my life, but these ideas really hammered it in. So yeah, do tell if this is useful at all :)