humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <6c038bbd-4f96-45d2-ace1-a8e731c73b15@
34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net says...
> On Feb 27, 6:00 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, and, as I have explained, she was implicitly referring to positive
> > > > obligations when she said this, not negative ones.
>
> And what textual evidence can you provide that Rand indeed meant that
> implication?

That she was attacking the concept of "duty" in that essay, a concept
that is used to require persons to act - that is to take positive
action, not inaction.

> When did she ever refer to "positive obligation" anywhere
> in her writing?

It is clear from the essay that she used "duty" to refer to "positive
obligations", which she rejected; and clear from the Man's Rights essay
that accepted that rights entail negative obligations.
...
> > > You speak of a thing such as "an obligation of a negative kind"  [a
> > > phrase Rand used *once* in the entire history of her writing]  is an
> > > actual existent.
> >
> > She used the phrase in a crucial essay on her political philosophy.
>
> And I provided the context for its meaning, both inside and outside
> the essay, while you cannot provide a single remark from anything
> Rand ever wrote elsehere or even within the essay itself to suggest
> that the "obligation of a negative kind" could ever resemble a duty or
> some sort of unchosen obligation. You say it is implicit, and I say
> that you are making a wrong inference based on a desire to inject
> "duty" into a philosophy that clearly rejects it.

First, I have no desire to inject what Rand calls "duty" into anyone's
philosophy - and I have made that clear several times since you provided
a link to the "duty essay". Second, You have provided nothing but
convoluted, clumsy, and confused language to defend your pet
interpretation of Rand as a neo-Hobbesian. You cannot account for how
she could possibly have said that negative obligations are imposed using
your theory - so, rather than reject your theory, you reject the
evidence, even to the point of leaving out of the quote.

> Supposing it *was* some sort of intellectual lapse, if an author says
> "A is B" and then says twenty times over again "A is not B", you
> could see either that (a) you missed something in the contextual
> meaning of the first statement or (b) the author made a mistake.

I don't have to suppose it was a mistake, because I can explain it as
deliberate and I am not urging a neo-Hobbesian interpretation of Rand.
*You* have to supposed it was a mistake, else your theory comes crashing
down. All I can say at his point is bite the bullet and be a man.

> Now,
> if you really want to show that Rand could have ever *really* meant to
> say that a thing such as a negative obligation is actually like a
> positive right imposed as if it were a duty,...

I am not saying that a negative duty is actually like a positive right,
imposed or not. Are you hoping that if you blow enough smoke no one
will see that you are surrounded by ruins?

--
Gordon