Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Kelley vs. epiphenomenalism
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales  
View profile  
 More options Jan 11 1994, 3:41 pm
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jwa...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 19:54:46 GMT
Local: Tues, Jan 11 1994 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: Kelley vs. epiphenomenalism

Jay Allen writes:
>That quick comment of mine was all too brief to stand on its own, so I
>will reply in length when I have the time.

Take your time.  I'll be here when you are ready.

>A quick comment: How can you say that the Marxist professor doesn't put
>his ideas into action? It is through his academic work--and through the
>work of his minions who spread Marxism throughout the culture--that peopl
>like Stalin come to exist?

I don't say that the Marxist professor doesn't put his ideas into
action.  I merely claim that 'academic work', i.e. the attempt to
persuade people through argument, is not the same thing as mass
murder.  The people to whom the Marxist preaches are always free
to focus on reality and reject his ideas; the people whom Stalin
murdered had thier rights violated in the most horrible way possible.

These are both instances of evil.  But they are different.  Keep
in mind that I agree with Ayn Rand that Kant is the most immoral
person in history.  (I don't know if Kelley agrees with this or
not.  It is a judgment about a specific person about which people
may properly disagree based on their own knowledge.)  

>I would also like to add that Jombo's essay seems to deny the existence of
>the subconscious. Are you saying, Jimbo, that someone who does not choose
>to focus on an idea will not be motivated to act on it?

Slow down, sparky.  I do not deny the existence of the subconscious.
I am NOT saying that someone who does not choose to focus on an idea
will not be motivated to act on it.  Go back and read Binswanger's
essay on this point.  I am in full agreement with him.  The person who
chooses a philosophy which encourages the avoidance of focus (e.g.,
Christianity) will feel psychological pressure to not focus.  

--Jimbo

p.s.  I think it is clear that Allen is grasping at straws.  Be a
man, Allen.  You lost the argument.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.