humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 27, 8:37 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
> In article <6c038bbd-4f96-45d2-ace1-a8e731c73b15@
> 34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>, cbel...@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.


No. She referred to any unchosen obligation as the same in meaning as
"duty". Again, never once did she create some distinction between
"positive" or "negative" duty or obligation.

>
> > 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",

No she did not. I asked for textual evidence for your assertions, not
your same assertion over again. What did she write that forces anyone
to interpret "duty" as only "positive obligations", not withstanding
the fact that if she ever wanted to draw that distinction, why did she
not just say so?


> which she rejected; and clear from the Man's Rights essay
> that accepted that rights entail negative obligations.

I was asking for any textual evidence other than that one fragment of
a sentence that would force anyone to agree with your interpretation
of that one fragment.

And no, it is not "clear", and in light of absolutely everything else
she ever wrote, even in that same essay, that interpretation is false.


> > > > 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.


She used it once, and in the context of her firmly rejecting ANY and
every unchosen obligation in that essay and everywhere else, any
interpretation that any obligation of any kind that can be unchosen is
false.

> > 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 elsewhere 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 -

No, you want to inject what you call "duty" into Objectivism in the
form of unchosen negative obligations being the equivalent to "rights
imply duties".