Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


User-Operated Forums
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on September 6

Eiuol had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

26071 profile views

Eiuol's Achievements

Senior Partner

Senior Partner (7/7)



  1. Book III 2 - Intelligence is in the greatest proportion in the animals that show love and familiarity to their young. This is mentioned in relation to survival benefit to the young. 4 - Aristotle notices that greater gestation time and greater size of the young contributes to decreasing how many young are produced. 10 - A great deal is said about how bees generate, especially to argue against existing theories about bees. It's all sensible enough, based on observation. Yet Aristotle acknowledges directly that this is what appears to be the truth, and specifically based off of premises, but that all the facts are not sufficiently grasped yet. He says that credit must be given first to observations rather than theories, and theories only if they agree with observed facts. Book IV 1 - Aristotle mentions other theories about how male and female is differentiated during development, but basically in the end dismisses any thorough refutation because they are not based on facts as they are now understood. Nature assigns an organ to the corresponding faculty. 2 - This chapter interestingly allows for an easier interpretation of virtue as a mean. By analogy, too much fire burns meat, too little fire doesn't cook it. In either case, the process is a failure. The focus is actually on a successful process caused by the proper proportion of characteristics. Aristotle speaks of an embryo becoming male when it prevails in its movement, which makes me think of Nietzsche because there is a certain biological willing that occurs. Although it can also be thought of as certain requirements being met compared to a default. All embryos actually start out as female, so in a way Aristotle is right, because becoming male must be actively created during development. But he also mentions the individual prevailing or the male principle prevailing. 4 - Monstrosities are contrary to nature, but only contrary in the sense of contrary to how things usually are but can still happen in other ways. 6 - Nutriment in development goes towards the size of the young, or in the other direction towards the number of young. Book V This book makes much more sense either in Parts, or History. Nothing is about generation. It actually makes most sense with Meteorology book IV. This book deals with hot and cold affecting organic things. Book V of Generation deals with hot and cold producing incidental traits in animals, such as hair color, eye color, and characteristics of skin. On the other hand, it does describe the generation of incidental characteristics. These characteristics are not because of any final cause about the animal. There can be numerous causes concretely speaking, these characteristics don't have to be because of an animal's definition.
  2. Even if they make the Delta strain worse specifically, that's only harmful to the people who are not vaccinated. In which case it's not really vaccination that makes the Delta strain worse, it is the fact that a vaccine exists but specifically there are people who don't want to get the vaccine. Incidentally, this would mean they are making it worse for themselves. Not the vaccines. The better approach is to use whyNot as a punching bag for practice on finding fallacies and errors in reasoning. He has a lot of them and it's good practice.
  3. How could it be? If I shoot a gun, the bullet going towards you has not actualized the damage yet, but you know it will very soon. The bullet hasn't "done its work" so to speak, meaning that since the bullet isn't doing anything to you yet, the damage can't be actual just yet. The damage isn't doing its work either. It remains as potential until the time you're hit. The difference with disease in many cases is just the amount of time for the damage to be actualized. Furthermore, the fact that there is time until the damage happens introduces a degree of uncertainty. It is not an absolute guarantee that shooting a gun will cause damage, because of so many random things that might happen. With a concrete like this before something happens, all you have is potential, the realistic possibility that damage will happen, albeit with a high probability. I agree that what matters is how it will reach that dangerous state, so I guess I could say that potential and actual about the harm isn't primary. What is primary is the context and condition in which things are happening. Disease might, in some instances, be like a bullet shot from a gun, but as with the bullet, we don't discuss the risk involved. Rather we talk about if the conditions are met to cause damage, as far as anybody would reasonably expect (crowded areas, direct line of sight, proximity, etc.).
  4. 20 - Catamenia are semen in the sense that they need to be worked on in order to generate. Although this fact is wrong, it still recognizes that females aren't simply receptacles. 22 - Semen sets up the movement of the material, and by doing so imparts shape and form. This motion varies along with the nature of what is made. In either case, Aristotle mentions no formal cause of generation, just efficient and material. 23 - There is a wonderful passage about why existence is better than nonexistence for a living thing. Book II 1 - The eternal causes the better in things that are capable of being better or worse. This makes sense insofar as reality is eternal and that the eternal nature makes it so reality is determinate. Since living is better than not living, there should be something in a sense "more eternal" about life. Individual things cannot be eternal, but across time a species is eternal in terms of that species is continuing. This is how we explain the nature of generation, in terms of final cause. (Seems close to evolution as a final cause.) That which makes the parts is first suggested to be a motion that occurs mechanically, by nature of the semen itself it seems. And if this is so, for animal generation, whatever makes the parts does not exist as something definite. The question is left here. But all of this is true of genes. If one organ forms the other, such as the heart forming the liver, then the form of the created thing would exist in the original organ. The form of the liver would be in the heart. 3 - Aristotle says that reason (the rational soul) could enter the body from the outside, unlike the sensitive and nutritive soul. He says it's because no bodily activity has any connection to it, which is literally true in the sense that reasoning is about abstract things. But I'm not sure what entering from the outside would be, or if this is necessarily mystical as it sounds. My only charitable interpretation is that he means the rational soul develops through learning after generation, that it doesn't exist during generation. 6 - Hearing, and smell, are through passages in the body. Touch and taste by the body itself. Only the eyes are a particular entity for a particular sense. This is why they might form so late. Aristotle also notes that having the largest brain is caused by having the purest heart, and this fact indicates intellect. 7 - Aristotle recognizes that any sufficiently similar animals produce the same animal when they copulate. But it sounds like same animal really just means same type, like wolf, so he doesn't actually think that animals remain all the same throughout time and history. 8 - There is an abstract proof of why mules are sterile. The proof is sensible enough, in that it is logically consistent from the premises, and the conclusion itself is what is seen in reality. But then Aristotle rejects that proof because it is empty and are not based on special principles, presumably of the science of generation. Aristotle is rejecting pure deduction. His explanation is instead generally that the animals that generate mules tend towards sterility as it is. Crossbreeding is difficult as it is, so it might make sense that the resulting children are even more sterile than parents.
  5. I don't actually know what this argument is or who this refers to exactly. I mean, do you mean a view that not being vaccinated is itself threatening? Because the only position I am offering here is that vaccine skepticism is invalid and that it is a poor basis for any argument. I pretty much agree with you but how do you take into account what is right now potential but will imminently be actualized in a short amount of time? And using the same type of example, what would you say if you were only reasonably confident that harm will happen?
  6. Which isn't the case here. This is a red herring, trying to introduce skepticism for all people who want a vaccine simply based on how one time more than half a century ago a vaccine preparation wasn't done properly.
  7. There are extensive problems with this article, including using words in ways that are misleading and misconstruing scientific reasoning.
  8. This is an example of conflation. No one has said this, or implied this. Rather, you seem to think that calling people irrational for not getting the vaccine means that they don't deserve liberty. So you think someone implied this. That's not a reason not to vaccinate. This is an argument with sophistry, because you are relying on the incorrect assumption that when comparing 2 things, if one thing has more of a quality, then adding the thing with less of a quality decreases the amount of the quality of the thing with more. They are reasons not to immediately trust him. To say he is a reliable source means we should criticize his credentials where necessary so we know what degree to trust them. This goes for every source you look at. He invented a technique, that's fine, but it doesn't say much of what matters here. Well, I do think that having an illness sometimes can qualify as potentially causing aggression. Depending on the illness, we could say that not wearing a mask or not being vaccinated is of such risk that someone necessarily will be harmed. This would be like how you can't randomly shoot bullets in your neighborhood. But I don't think covid is of a comparable level of danger to things like polio.
  9. They aren't just quibbles, they are very basic factors of understanding. You can't say he is integrated when he immediately and early on makes a bad comparison as if it is common sense. If you really want to get into it, although he has a Masters, he didn't complete his PhD, he feels intellectually victimized by the pharmaceutical company he worked for being partly at fault that he didn't get his PhD. There are a number of reasons that you might not trust him. I'm not saying this for you, but for anyone curious about Malone. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ Stop conflating decimating the stupidity of anti-vaxxers and forcing people to get the vaccine. Seriously, it's an embarrassment to the pro-liberty argument. I do think Doug is wrong on his ultimate argument, but stupidity never helped anything.
  10. It is as good of an analogy as comparing bacteria selection pressure caused by vaccines to the selection pressure on rabbits caused by more predators living in the area. They are so different that it is meaningless to make the comparison except to make a very general point about evolution.
  11. Clearly not, as I said, there has never been a case of over vaccination. I don't know why that is, but it is still true. I'm not responding to the rest, most of what you said is sophistry of some kind. Especially the first question you asked.
  12. No, there are not improved vaccines for measles, smallpox, chickenpox, polio, the flu, or anything else. There can be new strains but when that does happen, the vaccine is still effective to some degree. I don't know why this is, but to suggest that vaccines are anything like antibiotics is to ignore some very easy to see things. Only good things. Your "natural immunity" doesn't get worse. It isn't unknown territory at all. It's a very well studied field and very effective results from that study. Well, you being you, you are quite easily manipulated into believing false or poorly reasoned things. That scientist's analogy with antibiotics is enough to say that he is either an idiot, or manipulating you with his credentials.
  13. Generation of Animals translated by Arthur Platt How animals must come to be. Book I 2 - The essence of male and female is in terms of their function for generating offspring. The essence is not behavioral, anatomical, or anything normative. When this essential feature is altered, many other changes in the animal follow, so this is a reason that sex is a first principle. 17 and 18 - Far into these sections Aristotle defined semen as: that which has in its the principles from both united parents, as the first mixture which arises from the union of male and female Aristotle discusses two competing theories of what semen comes from, that is, what enables it to shape the nature of offspring. Argument that semen comes from the whole body: 1) the intense pleasure of sex 2) mutilations allegedly can be inherited 3) children resemble parents 4) if the whole arises from one thing, so too does each part, therefore semen gets the "first thing" for each part in the child from each part in the parent. Refutation: 3: Offspring sometimes look more like several generations prior. Does semen instead come from either homogenous parts, or heterogeneous parts? Homogenous is more fitting because the heterogeneous comes from the homogenous. If semen comes from both, then it comes from the composition of the homogenous. But this would mean that semen comes from some other underlying thing (like the elements). By analogy: if something comes from a name, it comes from the syllables. If something comes from the syllables, it comes from the letters and composition. Homogenous parts are made of something, a composition of things, so the underlying thing would be the actual place where semen comes from. Of course, today we know that there is something even underlying what homogenous parts are made of, and that is DNA. If the parts of the offspring are in the semen, how could they live? And if they were connected, they would already be an animal - how semen contributes to this is the question in the first place. Female parts don't resemble male parts, so semen couldn't come from every part. If a part not identical to blood can be produced by blood, then something not identical to blood can produce blood. In the same manner, semen does not need something from every part, but might need only something from one part. Men and women both can change from producing male offspring to producing female offspring. So it seems that the cause is a mutual proportion that comes from men and women. If this is true, then semen doesn't come from any particular part. How could many animals be generated from one act of mating if semen came from every part? How could the semen be distributed across all of the potential offspring? 1: the pleasure is caused by the friction involved in sex 2: the offspring are not consistently mutilated I detailed this because it's a thorough scientific argument about theory. There is absolutely nothing about the supernatural in any sense.
  14. While of course it is important to allow individual choice, it is never beneficial to argue for that by using bad scientific reasoning, especially if that means supporting individual choice by emphasizing one's own skepticism of scientific thought. A simple refutation: Vaccines do not function like antibiotics; one acts on the person, the other acts on the germ itself. Vaccines don't lose efficacy, the efficacy stays consistent for the virus it was designed for. Vaccines don't lead to drug resistance, in the same way that there has never been new outbreaks of measles because of over vaccinating against measles. Rather, outbreaks of measles have always been caused by under vaccinating. Unlike antibiotics, there is no case of a vaccine inadvertently causing virus resistance. There is no such thing as over vaccination. The first point, about antibiotics, is very deceptive by that scientist. It's an argument by analogy that doesn't work. And I'm sure he knows it.
  15. Movement of Animals translated by A. S. L. Farquharson What causes movement in change of place? That's the main question here. As usual, I don't like this translator. 1 - Each animal as a whole must have a point of rest within itself from which to originate movement. 2 - The point of rest is still useless unless there is an external point that is at rest. Otherwise it is like pushing a boat with a stick from inside itself. 3 - Atlas fable used as thought experiment. He seems to imply that the fabulist's view entails that the earth would not be in a position that's part of the universe. If Atlas initiates movement of the heavens, he has to push against the earth. If the earth is at rest, then Atlas is pushing against the earth with the same amount of force that the earth resists with. Superior force by Atlas is required in order to for him to move the heavens. All of this would imply that the earth would be pushed away and out of the universe. Or, the earth would have to give as much force as the entire heavens and Atlas, which is also impossible, because the earth cannot have infinite force. 4 - Animals must in addition have an immovable point within itself, in terms of its own parts. 6 - The object of desire or intellect initiates movement in animals. These things only initiate movement to the extent that those objects are for the sake of something else. After this it sounds like Aristotle says that the eternally moved by the prime mover, is moved like an animal, almost as if the universe is conscious, but I think he means that the likeness is that of the previous chapters, and the difference from animals is that animals are not eternal. So the prime mover moves things by virtue of its perfection and requires no faculty or desires, but animals use desire to move things or themselves. 7 - When a man actualizes himself in relation to an object by perception, imagination, or conception, he does what he desires at once. 8 and 9 - Aristotle suggests a central point or primary point for the soul to originate movement, but he focuses on a physical point to move from for the soul to be a source of movement. He seems far from conceiving of a source or originating point that isn't solid, like electricity.
  • Create New...