Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Posts

    2755
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

MisterSwig last won the day on December 8 2021

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Biology, Volition, Values, Rights, Music

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Real Name
    William
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    YouTube show, Welcome To Reality! https://youtu.be/YEQTs3ovbtc
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Recent Profile Visitors

6702 profile views

MisterSwig's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

208

Reputation

  1. We talked with Jason Hill about his battles with cancel culture over his views on Israel and "trans" issues. I asked him about his new book which deals with the history of slavery and calls for reparations. And we talk a bit about his views on the Democrats vs Republicans today. Check it out!
  2. In this discussion we argue against vaccine mandates and examine the idea that unvaccinated people are "unfit for society." Check it out!
  3. Phil Magness is the AIER economic historian who received the Collins-Fauci emails through a FOIA request and then published them. He also exposed factual errors with the 1619 Project and wrote a book critiquing it. We interviewed him about these subjects and others on our latest podcast. Enjoy!
  4. In most cases you can perceive enough of the whole to identify parts of it, since parts are integrated into the whole. Let's say I'm looking into the window of a house, and I can only see a torso with arms and a head. These must be parts of the same whole because they are one thing distinguishable from the space and other things around them.
  5. Aren't you imposing the process of abstraction on the entity itself? These characteristics don't exist as separate entities. The so-called "higher characteristics" are still characteristics of the one, original entity, since an entity is all of its parts or attributes. The infinite regress is merely an abstraction in your mind. As for the problem you present, it's true that, in any particular moment, we generally perceive only part (or some) of an entity. However, perception is a process over a period of time, and with some investigation we might perceive enough of the parts to conceive the whole. Notice that we do not arrive at the law of identity through perception alone. Man also relies on his faculty of conception for that level of knowledge.
  6. Scott and I respond to Yaron Brook's negative view of "It's a Wonderful Life." We argue that he's wrong. It's not about altruism. It's about a conflicted man who is basically a good person and comes to realize the importance of his individual life. Check it out!
  7. We just interviewed the artist Michael Newberry. We talk about his paintings (and show a few of them), as well as his philosophical ideas on aesthetics and postmodernism. This was a special treat for me, as I really enjoy his paintings, my favorite being "Winter." Check out the episode!
  8. Andrew Bernstein and Dave Goodman joined us for this episode on Kyle Rittenhouse and the left's attacks on private property and self-defense rights. Check it out!
  9. In this episode Scott interviews me. It was recorded last year, before we started doing the podcast together. We talk about my background coming out of a Protestant worldview and becoming an atheist and Objectivist. Scott also asks me about his favorite subject, life extension.
  10. But we do see atoms, and the atoms are composed of electrons that are exterior to the nucleus, so that when we look at an atom, we are seeing the electrons in the form that we can see them. Correct? For example, here is Nadlinger's picture of an illuminated strontium atom. And below is a video of gold atoms being bombarded with an electron beam.
  11. I don't know what Rand got wrong about Aristotle. To him "form" wasn't the description of a thing's essence, it was the thing's actual essence. He considered a thing to be a composition of its form and its matter. Matter was potential, but form was actual. His whole system resulted in the belief that there was a pure form which was the Prime Mover.
  12. That's not my understanding. Aristotle makes a distinction between two boundaries: form and place. Form is the boundary of a thing. Place is the motionless boundary of the body which contains that thing. Place is neither the form nor the matter of the movable thing it contains, because the contained thing can separate from the containing place. While Aristotle observed that place is not the thing which is in place, he unfortunately conceived of place as a container, or a form-like boundary. Seemingly a vestige of Plato's influence, Aristotle upheld a form-matter dichotomy. But instead of relegating forms to another world, he attempted to place them in this one. Aristotle asks great questions, such as what it means for one thing to be "in" another thing, but he did not have Rand whispering in his ear, "Check your premise!"
  13. Welcome! How's life in New Zealand? And what got you interested in Rand?
  14. Thank you, Stephen. That clears up a confusion I had. I need to study and think about this more before responding. I make a distinction now between space and location. So the space itself wouldn't be a characteristic of a particle, as the particle is always traveling through different space, never remaining in the same space. But the particle's location is relative to other objects and thus can remain a constant characteristic qua relationship to these objects by which location is measured. My picture of the atom is of a nucleus carrying most of the mass, and electrons rapidly zipping around the nucleus. So most of the empty space is between the nucleus and the orbits of the electrons. I've read that the electrons form a "cloud" around the nucleus, thus the space isn't mostly empty. But if this idea is based on observation, couldn't it be an optical illusion? Consider how rapidly spinning propellers on a plane appear as blurs, when in reality the propellers are not blurs. The electrons could be moving around so quickly that they merely appear as a cloud that fills the space.
×
×
  • Create New...