"Bissell points out that when Peikoff says, “There is no such ‘why,’” he can only mean that one is focusing without any reason. "
Who is this "one" who is apparently focusing for no reason?
There is no "one" if you split volition from man's identity.
But you cannot split man's consciousness into fragments and still have a consciousness anymore than you can split a man's body into fragments and still have a body.
Man is a living being of volitional-consciousness.
Perhaps if Bissell read ahead to the chapter on concept-formation he would have a better grasp of free will and its efficacy.
In the meantime perhaps Bissell might care to ask himself: what makes him say what he says if not himself?
No comments:
Post a Comment