To focus or not to focus
Read the article this discussion is about
- djrodman
- Franc28
- djrodman
- Franc28
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» djrodman - Great doubt, great confusion
"To focus or not to focus is a primary choice. But it cannot really be a choice, because if one is unable to focus, one cannot make a conscious decision to focus ! "This is the classic determinist argument. Are you aware that you are directly contradicting Objectivist philosophy? If so, it would really be good to state clearly that you are a determinist, and that you oppose Objectivism on fundamental epistemological grounds. It's very confusing to see these statements in the context of "Rational" spirituality, interspersed with quotes from Ayn Rand and Ed Hudgins and other Objectivists.
"Insofar as we are bound to our primitive natures, we are not responsible for our actions in the ethical sense. But that is a more technical issue. We must be grateful for it and praise Providence for such a wonderful gift. "
You don't think this is an expression of a view consonant with Objectivism, surely? This is a fundamental apologia for every form of tyrrany, both political and intellectual. If I am not responsible for my actions, who is? What's so technical about this issue? It's not rocket science, it's very, very basic ethics.
-- posted by djrodman
» Franc28 - Re: Great doubt, great confusion
In response to message posted by djrodman:What you mean is that it is not concordant with what Ayn Rand believed. That is correct. However I made no claim to be a Randist. My compatibilist position is perfectly compatible with Objectivism.
-- posted by Franc28
» djrodman - Re: Re: Great doubt, great confusion
In response to message posted by Franc28:This conversation will work better if you speak for what you are saying and I speak for what I am saying. I do not presume to say what Ayn Rand believed and it is presumptuous for to you claim that I am doing that, and even more presumptuous for you to claim any knowledge of what she believed; I do say that your position that we are not morally responsible for our actions is the precise opposite of the Objectivist ethics. Perhaps you can cite a reference to the literature, showing the progression from objective reality, reason, and enlightened self-interest and drawing the conclusion that I am not morally responsible for my actions. I would suggest going back to the very basic premises of Objectivist ethics and reading them very carefully. You've got it exactly backwards.
What Ayn Rand believed is irrelevant; Objectivism is a living philosophy based on objectively defined principles, and you cannot reason without contradiction from those principles to the conclusion that you are not morally responsible for your actions.
-- posted by djrodman
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.