Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

2046 last won the day on March 29

2046 had the most liked content!

About 2046

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8941 profile views
  1. Sweet new force of nature just dropped boys
  2. You could've just said "I'm confused by technical terms"
  3. An argument requires 3 terms
  4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed like he described "metaphysical possibility" as potentiality and didn't describe or definite "epistemological possibility" at all?
  5. The two papers I posted treat different aspects of this. The first attempts to ground modal logic in the concepts of act and potency, arguing that a potency is a dispositional property and thus entails the existence of a possibility. The second is a part of a dissertation that criticizes the "logical possibility argument" that treats a possibility in terms of what can be imagined without contradiction.
  6. Potency and modality.pdf logical possibility and necessary truth.pdf
  7. Is form just "relation"? At first glance, I'd say no. In order for something to have a relationship with something else, it has to be that specific thing having that specific relationship with this specific other thing, ie., it has to have matter. Betweeness in the examples you have is a relationship between form-matter composites. But, that's not to say that it's entirely unrelated. The categories trace the way in which form and matter relate to substances and predicates, insofar as predication is our way of signifying different modes of being, and form and matter are two fundamental asp
  8. Just as he essentially agrees with the materialists that nature is mechanistic and reductionist (cf my post), he also must essentially agree with the ethical reductionists that punishment and reward is the only thing the good nominally subsists in. The full horseshoe.
  9. Now to your second question: “Do those almost with us do more harm than 100% enemies?” I don’t think this can be answered with a flat “yes” or “no,” because the “almost” is such a wide term and can cover so many different attitudes. I think each particular case has to be judged on his own performance, but there is one general rule to observe: those who are with us, but merely do not go far enough, yet do not serve the opposite cause in any way, are the ones who do us some good and who are worth educating. Those who agree with us in some respects, yet preach contradictory ideas at the same time
  10. Indeed that is the very essence of binary thinking Indeed, if they just made an honest argument for trade offs, I'd halfway respect them. But they're very dumb
  11. The people he criticized literally and explicitly oppose individualism and say so themselves. In fact, they think teh lEfTiStS are the logical outcome of individualism, as they themselves say in the article.
  12. To continue our discussion on the ways form and matter might be understood to apply to philosophical problems, there is another way you can see these abstract, technical theories undergird pop or folk philosophies of nature. One recent example is the dialogue between Prager and Biddle. (If you don't know who these people are, or are uninterested in them, the point I'm making isn't really about them. If you want to debate about different aspects of their interaction, please ignore this post.) There is something in political discourse called "horseshoe theory," according to which different
  13. https://youtu.be/AiOxnSyP_nA Good New Ideal article out criticizing at least one branch of religious conservatives. Mentioned supra: Hazony, Lowry, Brog, DeMuth, Dineen, Orban.
×
×
  • Create New...