Status Updates From Free Will

Wittgenstein's frustration with philosophers comes to mind - it really does seem like an issue that arises from a lack of clarity over definitions. The two opposing perspectives are in conflict because they rely on a different definition of free will. If you take Harris's definition, his argument is infallible. Otherwise, it's ridiculous. The two viewpoints cannot be reconciled. Seems like a non-issue to me

I'm not sure I see continuing to read the book as a productive pastime. His thesis is laid out in completion in the first 15 pages, and his argument against compatibilism - in the next 10. I feel like he just keeps repeating himself and giving the same arguments in different words. I disagree with his view and I agree with the compatibilist approach.