Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

2046

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

Everything posted by 2046

  1. Cretins, I've observed, are often unable to conceive of two or more people talking about what they want to talk about, and not what you want them to be talking about. I remember when that issue came out, I felt bad that Biondi and Khawaja even had to respond to Mozes.
  2. Sweet new force of nature just dropped boys
  3. You could've just said "I'm confused by technical terms"
  4. An argument requires 3 terms
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Potency and modality.pdf logical possibility and necessary truth.pdf
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. The dominant views in 20th century philosophy of science has been backed by materialism and nominalism. We are familiar with that views challenges to cognition, intentionality, free will, personal identity, and normativity. That view however has been seriously challenged by failures and inability to integrate with new discoveries in the quantum revolution and biology. Another branch of philosophy that the concepts of matter and form can illuminate is philosophy of mind. The two main dominant views in philosophy of mind have been some form of materialism and dualism. But they both have pri
  16. That was the best part of Atlas Shrugged when John Galt had to convince the majority before doing what he wanted
  17. There is no law so obscene that Republicans will not enforce it, to include lockdowns, caging children, and mass murder.
  18. That's because any sarcasm was accidental and not essential to our discussion on hylemorphism. While we're on the subject of Gotthelf, his festschrift Lennox and Bolton (2010) is also a good source of information about teleology, namely the first chapter by Sedley. This brings up a great point: that there is not even one "thing" called teleology. There are all sorts of versions and interpretations of it, and even in Aristotle he does not always consistently speak of teleology or the causes or form in the same way. Another good source on the connection between the four causes and hylemorph
  19. The 115s are, generally speaking, literally unable to perceive their interactions as unwanted, they have no idea why anyone would react that way
  20. I am well known for my goal to describe things in ways others will find acceptable
  21. Whatever answer causes you to stop engaging with me
  22. What's all these numbers mean I don't get it can you explain
×
×
  • Create New...