Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Content Count

    6331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    128

Eiuol last won the day on May 10

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • 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.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

25477 profile views
  1. Of course. You are asking a specific question, to be answered in ways that have already been done. And I know the difficulty of the question. You have the basic idea of what free will is, but if you want the deeper understanding, there is no reason not to go straight to the people who have already thought about this. I'm not even saying read hundreds of pages - if you look at the distinction about nutritive, vegetative, and intellectual, that should help a lot. Just keep in mind that unmoved mover doesn't mean the origin of mechanical action in an entity. The unmoved mover is the idea
  2. I actually have more reason to think that this incident is faked, or unrelated. The house isn't near the trial, the witness doesn't live in the house, it didn't happen to others, and no connection was established. Hell, maybe the incident was legitimate but for completely different reasons, including because those people who lived in the house were the actual target. There is so much missing information. Nothing. I never was talking about the difference about evidence for the case. That's why this isn't about skepticism on my part. I'm not proposing "what if so-and-so evidence was pre
  3. It sounds like he's saying that he just means another way of looking at it. The 4 causes can be translated as "the 4 explanations" or "the 4 answers to questions", and I don't think he's talking about causes in any other way. They are explanations for why things are the way they are. That's why you can think of it as looking at it another way. You need all the explanations for a sufficient explanation of why something is the way it is overall. If you want another cause, it means another kind of explanation. Emergence isn't necessarily another type, it can fit under mechanical cause (ie it
  4. That would be incidentally or accidentally. But if there really are two paths, there is some kind of selection in order to achieve drinking water. If the lion is trying to get to the lake and goes along the left path because that happens to be on the way to the lake, he is still looking at the environment and making some kind of choice. Even more importantly, we know he would change course as the circumstances change. Incidental or accidental would be more like a lion stepping on a dry leaf.
  5. There aren't too many, and most people seemed to agree, but that's what skeptics do. They give reasons to doubt, based on sheer possibility. That was my only point. I don't think that's true, rhetoric is extremely important for persuasive speaking and lawyers understand this, but anyway, I was referring to the majority of the prosecution, not that everything I thought was good arguing. If you look carefully, I never said anything about the decisions the jurors made. I didn't at all say what decision they should have made. It's fine for us to talk about the evidence that we saw,
  6. Are you wondering how you can tell that something else is volitional? My best suggestion for now is to read De Anima by Aristotle, or part of it, or watch/read something about what he says.
  7. One thing that we can be sure of is that nothing acts randomly. You can say randomly as if you have no idea, but no animal or anything in existence acts truly randomly. Turning right is not involuntary, the whole point about locomotion is that it requires control. You can actually cut the spine of a cat in a specific surgical way and it's legs can move automatically without being even connected to the brain. This has been done before, the cat could walk on a treadmill. That would be involuntary and automatic in the truest sense. Yet this ability is not at all adaptive. You can't simply set the
  8. I didn't notice. So I asked. But anyway, critical theory didn't develop out of deconstructionism as you suggested.
  9. But why did you decide to post it here, was it mentioned in the podcast episode?
  10. That isn't deconstructionism. I'm asking why DW brought it up in this discussion. Or rather, I'm sure there is a connection, but deconstructionism is literary analysis. Well yeah, it's a portmanteau, as much it seems like it is meant to be a synonym of destruction (it probably doesn't seem that way in French). There is nothing wrong with breaking your assumptions, or smashing your false idols. There is also nothing wrong with making something new out of that. That's what Oism is to some degree - rethinking your assumptions about morality, breaking them apart, and making something new
  11. Because it is an animal. By the way we define animal and understand them and observe them, they are necessarily aware. Besides the essential of self generated action - which implies locomotion for animals - they have sense organs, they respond to the world, and have behaviors too complicated to leave as simply a robotic stimulus response. There is awareness, and then there is the focus of awareness. We might actually be able to say that some animals can focus their awareness to a limited degree (like a dog perking up his ears if he sees somebody he recognizes and remembers, or when a
  12. Well, you said they don't relate words to words, but that's what they do. It's not that there are no referents, or that they are circularly referenced (I don't know what that means), but whatever referents we use cannot be objectively determined or that you cannot find meaning through objective references. Something to that effect. And, as I mentioned before, it is mostly literary analysis; it is not some wider theory about epistemology, whatever its implied epistemology would be. Of course you and I would care about these definitions when analyzing a piece of literature, since that wo
  13. It would seem that actually deconstructionism assumes that there is only relation of words to words, so that's the only place to find any kind of meaning. It becomes something like linguistic analysis or sophism (where discourse is just about the way you use words). I mean, I agree that it's not good epistemologically but it might not be as bad as it seems at first glance. It looks to me that everything to a deconstructionist reduces to language or the way language develops. Keep in mind that this all has to do with literary analysis. I think the policy of a deconstructionists is to s
  14. It's fair to say that concepts require volition yet not all volitional creatures have concepts. It's also fair to say that maybe only creatures with conceptual consciousness (or conceptual volition) have the capacity to form very particular kinds of concepts with simply repeated observation (such as concretes like "dog"). (If anyone wants I can back this up and even show that it isn't necessarily inconsistent with Rand) I'm saying that I don't see why volition should require conceptual capacity. At least going by Rand and probably many Aristotelian perspectives, volition is only a cap
×
×
  • Create New...