And we could define compatibilism as the denial of incompatibilism; that is, as the claim that some deterministic worlds are free will worlds.
Given this apparatus, we could define incompatibilism and compatibilism in the following way: incompatibilism is the thesis that no deterministic world is a free will world.
Within compatibilism, the general rule is that free will can be defined as anything, so long as it is never defined as freedom of choice, freedom for any actual individual to have done otherwise.
(This view of freedom is called "compatibilism").
Compatibilism isn't easy to explain.
Compatibilism has an ancient history, and many philosophers have endorsed it in one form or another.
Notwithstanding Bradley's argument, compatibilism remained popular among 20th-century thinkers.
The British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806 73) was the major champion of compatibilism in the 19th century.
Strawson (1919 2006) introduced an influential version of compatibilism grounded in human psychology.
If this is so, then Aristotle's compatibilism is really a disguised form of libertarianism.
