I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Gene, what is your view of the relationship between the brain and the mind? It seems as though (human) minds are products of brains; there seems to be some emergent process that creates or actualizes consciousness.
ReplyDeleteI know that one of my favorite Idealist philosophers, Keith Ward, is a 'process property dualist', or something of that sort. He takes mind to be fundamental to reality, as all idealists do, but then states that there are two different properties (as opposed to substances) in the world, and that (human) minds are products of processes.