Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

User-Operated Forums
  • Posts

    6727
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    142

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. I found it. It is the third to last post on this page https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/722-a-question-of-sanction/#comments
  2. Do you have a source about what Schwartz said about David Kelley? I believe you, but I'm curious to read more.
  3. His system did not, the unmoved mover is not God, nor did he have a first cause. The unmoved mover is not a first cause, because there is no absolute first in his system. It is eternal, with no beginning or end. There could be a first movement, but this is different than the first cause as thought of by Aquinas. All of his scientific beliefs were derivative to his philosophical beliefs. None of them have a particular effect on the specifics of his philosophy, but they do reveal the way he investigated the world. His beliefs about astronomy were the most inaccurate, but this makes sense given that telescopes were not invented yet. Even if you did demonstrate that one of his scientific beliefs had a considerable impact on his philosophy, you never did mention which beliefs Oism grew out of. What you mentioned about rationality was a completely wrong interpretation of what both Aristotle and Oism advocate. I couldn't quote things in a single post, that's why I made 2.
  4. No idea where you got that from. No he wasn't, he is the designated heir of her estate. Rand said he understood Oism better than anyone else in her estimation, but she never did call him a philosophical heir.
  5. To own something means that it is distinct from you. You can't own yourself, you are yourself. Using possessive words doesn't make something into ownership. I oppose mandates because for one, it is not a good way to persuade people hesitant about vaccines to take them, and actions done to you require consent. Mostly of course, these are medical procedures, and like anything with your body, there is direct impact on how you lead your life. Yeah, it is frankly irrational to not get the vaccine in virtually all cases, but there is no forced interaction going on. It is better to create a community around people who think rationally about vaccines and medicine than forcing the community of irrational people to do what the rational people want.
  6. It violates your right to life, not the right to your mind. Point is, it isn't a rights violation because someone took over what you own, but because someone is forcibly preventing you from using your mind as you saw fit, which is your very means of survival. Self ownership is at best a metaphor.
  7. That would be a gross oversimplification. It isn't as though you own your mind as if it is a separate thing distinct from you. Or at least, the Oist position on individual rights makes absolutely no mention of self ownership. What counts is how you function, how you work as a living thing, how you survive. But this actually makes it easier to discuss how medical interventions ought to be voluntary Unfortunately, many people don't know how to justify being against mandates without also being against vaccines in general.
  8. This is a completely inaccurate portrayal of Aristotle. The soul is something like life force, and only living things have one. Rocks and water do not have souls. He even criticized those ideas directly, and wrote arguments why love is not a cause of change and movement. Certainly love for God has nothing to do with it. In the passage you quoted, I said elsewhere that I think he was speaking metaphorically when he said that heavenly bodies move based on their love of the unmoved mover. In fact, he does say that the unmoved mover causes movement in the metaphorical sense that a lover is affected by the loved, even if the loved doesn't react. Besides the unmoved mover is not God, it isn't really even sentient. No, they are from lack of self-control leading one to give into excesses that are directly harmful. For your own knowledge, Aristotle never did claim that the human mind is like God. To be more specific, he explicitly thought that human thought was not divine, but the human mind is closer to the divine than any other living thing. What he means by divine is not necessarily a mind of God, but something of the highest good and closer to contemplative intellect. But then we have to take in mind that humans are, well, human; we have practical concerns and active concerns about the world around us, and must think about those things to have a good life. These are the so-called limits of human reason. My point here is that Aristotle thought about the potential for irrationality in all people, and was driven by a biological view of existence.
  9. I would say that if we are just blobs of matter, epiphenomenalism would be possible, which leaves room for indirect realism. When you throw in the Theravada idea that there is no do-er or experience-er, not even epiphenomenalism is possible, so neither direct realism nor realism would be possible. That is, since either view is about perceptual content in some way or another, the absence of any kind of perceptual content precludes either view. So if you want better arguments for direct realism, you need some sort of do-er, and perceptual experience or content needs to make a meaningful causal difference for action. That's on top of the rest about making sure you are directly connected to reality. I would say that is because it goes back to a more ancient Greek and Roman way of doing philosophy, mixed in with observations from some very modern developments in biology, psychology, and technology. Aristotle is especially helpful regarding perception, because he never was working with all the philosophers alive since Galileo. Yes, Galileo was an astronomer/physicist, but that's when people started to think of the human mind like a machine, and indirect realism is a way to describe how a machine comes up with experiences. Not that people thought the mind was literally machine, but it helped bring about ways of thinking that lends itself more to indirect realism. Of course, there is something more than mere machinery or electrical impulses going on. I can expand a lot more on that if you want. What is more than mere machinery could be described as the soul, in the Aristotelian sense, which can be described as (very roughly and coarsely) a power of life or life force. Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley is a book worth reading as well, which is specifically about the Oist position on perception, and consciousness as well by implication.
  10. Given the context of when he says this, I don't think he means this literally. The idea seems to be that if existence is eternal, then there can be infinitely many earlier civilizations. So given the capacities of man, knowledge would be inevitably discovered multiple times even if those civilizations have been long gone. This is very similar to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence. It isn't a metaphysical thesis, but what would happen if people are thrown into the same situation with the same knowledge multiple times for eternity.
  11. Book VII 1 – External things are acquired and safeguarded by virtue. 4 – A city that is too small will lack capacity to act a certain way, while a city that is too big will be in poor condition. 8 - Minimal requirements of the city 9 - I can’t tell if Aristotle is saying that farmers, mechanical craftsmen, and market people should not be citizens because he says that these are not the lives most conducive to virtue. 10 – Aristotle suggests that everything has been discovered infinitely many times. 11 - Geographical placement of the city 12 - Buildings and areas of the city 13 – Necessity is good like retribution, but it would be more choiceworthy for a city to have no need for it. Saying that external things cause happiness is like giving credit for beautiful harp playing to the harp rather than the person playing. 14 – Necessary action is for the sake of beautiful action. 16 – having children 17 – raising children Book VIII 3 - Greeks were customarily educated in letters, gymnastics, music, drawing. Education in music is education in terms of learning how to best to spend leisure time. Music is suitable for leisure time because it is suited for freedom, and it is beautiful. 5 – Music education habituates people to a capacity to enjoy things properly. Within music is a true imitation of a state of character such as anger and courage. 6 – Aristotle has a negative opinion of professional musicians. He suggests that performers act for the sake of others and seek to please spectators primarily. But it is interesting how he is basically directly considering second headedness.
  12. Book IV 1 - Laws should be adapted to the government, not the government to the law. In this way, I see the government as primary, but laws should be made as well as they can be for that form of government, even if there is an ideal government with ideal law. 2 – Of bad government, democracy is the best. Of good government, democracy is the worst. 3 - First democracy – complete equality. 6 – Democracy: who can participate First form: everyone can participate if they can take time off. Second form: Only citizens Third form: All free people may participate Fourth form: Everyone does take part and they all can take time off, and the populace ends up acting like a tyrant. This is when demagogues may arrive. Oligarchy First form: When people are inferior and possess small property. Second and third form: Less and better property, begins to give way to favoritism and nepotism Fourth form: Confederacy of the powerful 8 – Constitutional rule leaning towards oligarchy is called aristocracy just because of being well off with money. This is why aristocracy is viewed as something bad even though it is about virtue. 10 - Tyranny only has a view to its advantage. 11 – Extreme neediness breaks a spirit, so these people only know how to be ruled in a slavish way. Extremely fortunate people don’t know how to be ruled. Combining these people makes a city consist of slaves and masters only. This is far from friendship, an important aspect of a healthy city. 14- How the government deliberates 16 – Three characteristics of courts: from among whom members are drawn, what they judge, how they are appointed. Book V 2 – The causes of factional conflict: the condition people are in; for the sake of which they engage in conflict, and initial occasions of turmoil. 4 – Why governments change 5 – Tyrants are generals and demagogues. A demagogue without military skill primarily has skill with rhetoric still lacks the same degree of power or ability that a tyrant would have. 6 – Oligarchies can change in war and peace when, due to distrust of the people, mercenaries are used for defense and security. Those mercenaries eventually take over. 7 – Governments are preserved when the things that destroy them are far away, and when those things are held close, they cause people to cling to the government out of fear. 10 – Tyrants arise in support of the populace, in opposition to prominent people. Tyrants seek pleasure, kings seek beauty. Kingship is primarily destroyed from within. Either the king becomes tyrannical, or creates factions. Kings of unwilling subjects are tyrants. 11 - Tyrants are warmongers, so that people don’t have leisure and will always need a leader. Tyrants aim to make people think small, get people to distrust one another, and hinder actions. Book VI 2 – The things common to democracy 4 – Constitutional government comes about best from farmers because their territory is spread out. But this is really only something that matters when non-farmers are close enough to where actions of the government take place. Aristotle's concern is that those people would have more opportunity to be disruptive. 5 – What is conducive to a government is not the manner that makes the government take its form to the greatest extent possible, but what makes the government last. 8 – Minimal offices of the government
  13. That's basically just reductionism. But in any case, your reasoning doesn't really get at defeating indirect realism. If the mystical version of the soul did exist, that doesn't necessarily exclude realism, and even if were just bags of meat (which sounds like your position) that doesn't necessarily exclude indirect realism. This would be something like indirect realism in terms of an analogy. If this image were presented to consciousness (to make the analogy work for conscious entities), that would mean that there is another layer of perception or interpretation between reality and consciousness. Direct realism would be like saying that there is no image in between, just going straight from reality to consciousness. There would be no need to create the photograph of reality. Yes, there is a biological process of perception that results in awareness of reality in a specific form. But if an image or form is constructed, then interpreted, then brought to awareness, you would have indirect realism.
  14. 8 – Since written laws are universal, and actions are about particulars, then laws need to be changed sometimes. In other words, laws can strive to be universal in a sense, but they will always apply to particular instances that can easily be different and relevant ways. 9 - Spartan government 10 - Cretan government 11 - Carthaginian government 12 – Famous politicians Book III 1- A citizen is one who takes part in judging and ruling. So people are citizens to the greatest extent in democracy in terms of what degree they participate as a multitude. 3- Form of government is what makes a city different, not the citizens being different, because the association of citizens is the form of government. 4 – A ruler learns to rule by being ruled. 5 - The qualifications of citizenship should grow stricter over time. 7 - Kingship – tyranny Aristocracy – oligarchy Constitutional - democracy These are the forms of government and distinguished from their corrupted versions. But these distinctions evolve across the chapters. 8 – Oligarchy is when people rule because of wealth, democracy is when the poor are in charge. Fees and money are incidental. 9 - Because a complete life is living happily and beautifully, and the city is an association of the people, a city is for the sake of beautiful action, not living together. 11- Familiarity with the house doesn’t only belong to the builder. The person living in the house is familiar as well, perhaps more so. 13 – Aristotle says that people of good birth are likely to be good people; but he disputes this in the book Rhetoric. If one person is so much better than others in virtue, then it would be unjust for them to hold equal shares. They will be a god among humans. They would be the law. This is why ostracism existed. 14 – Forms of kingship: - Heroic form, over willing subjects with limited function. - Barbarian form, rule by family descent according to law. - Caretaker form, elected tyranny - Spartan form, generalship by family descent. 15 – Kingship is better for small cities. 16 – The law is intellect without appetite. I take this to mean that the law is blind, because it doesn't have feelings or emotions. Laws from custom are the most authoritative. 18- Aristotle favors aristocracy.
  15. Politics translated by Joe Sachs This book doesn't seem to be compiled very well, but it is the form that exists. Some of it is about normative claims regarding politics, and other parts are descriptive claims and observations about government. Book I 1 - The most sovereign of all associations is the city. 2 – That which has the power to look into the future by thinking is a natural master, but carrying this out is naturally slavish. A city is more primary than a household, and a household is more primary than an individual. This isn't to say that the collective supersedes the individual, but that the activities of a city are where the activities of individuals move towards. So this may be like how the body overall is more primary than the cells that comprise it. A complete human is the best animal, but separate from the law, he is him the worst. 4 – If labor were automated like robots, there would be no need for subordinates. A household manager uses slaves as instruments over other instruments. As the instruments of the master, they are possessions. 5 - A slave is like a tame animal. 7 - The relationship between slave and master should be mutual. It should not be merely dominance from the master, but something that benefits both people given their capacities. 8 – The social structures of animals seems to be different because of food. Consider the social lives of lions compared to the social lives of sheep. 11 – The story of Thales when he was told that philosophy was useless, so that winter he invested in all the olive trees based on philosophical reasoning, and became rich by predicting opportunity in the future. 13 – Aristotle says that slaves don’t deliberate, women deliberate without authority, children have incomplete deliberation. Women should be educated in politics because their children are what make up a city. Book II 2 - A city cannot be one in a platonic way, because it is many people. Households are more singular, and individualss more so. A city is when an association of multiplicity that is self-sufficient. 5 – Aristotle mentions 3 ways property is divided. Private property and common stock. Common property and private stock Common property and common stock The people who work the land should not be those who take from the common stock because otherwise they will disagree with others about what they deserve. Those who work the land would believe that they deserve more from the common stock. 7 - Wealth is not always good for a city because it gives an incentive for others to attack.
  16. Book VII 2 – Impasses about self-restraint 3 - Unrestraint comes from not actively knowing. I find that this implies lack of mindfulness leads to lack of restraint. Also, universal conception makes it possible for particular desires to take the lead because it can set in motion each part of the body. But this is vague to me, perhaps it means that knowledge in the best sense is how one can create purposeful desires, because universal conception is the way any person sets themselves in motion best. 6 – Desire takes the place of a missing premise. After all, desire is a reason for acting, but doesn't necessarily stem from thinking, especially when there is no premise from thinking. Spiritedness is to act on an implied premise. This would mean that it stems from something thought of or deliberated about. 8 – Impulsive people are better than those who have reason but don’t stick to it. 9 – It is not unrestraint to not stand firm because of a beautiful pleasure. 10 – Unrestraint is like a city with laws of serious worth but doesn’t use them. Vice is like a city that uses vicious laws. 13 - Aristotle says that it is nonsense to say that a person is happy if he is a good person even when being tortured. 14 – There can be excess pleasure and good for the body, in the sense of enjoyable food. With pain, people avoid all of it, not just an excess. Book VIII 3 – Wishing good things for friends for their own sake is the best because those that wish it want it for themselves. 7 – Friendship is primarily in accord with amount, than what is deserved. Justice is the opposite. 11 – Friendship shows itself to the extent justice does, in each constitution. 12 – Human beings live together not just for offspring like animals, but also for the things that go to life. This place is each person’s work into common supply. Book IX 4 – Corrupt people look for others so that they can run away from themselves. When alone they have uncomfortable recollections but forget when with others. 7 – The work of someone who makes something endures. 8 - The great-soul is a self-lover. 9 - A person of serious worth needs people to be good to, so happy people need friends. Awareness that you are alive is pleasant in itself. This happens when you are at work perceiving or thinking. Book X 2 - When pleasure is added to something good, that thing becomes more choiceworthy. But adding to pleasure does not make pleasure more choiceworthy. 4 – Pleasure seems to be always complete. Even if pleasure can increase and decrease over time, it isn't as though pleasure is gradually built like a house. The senses produce a kind to pleasure, so the senses that are the most complete and at-work are the most pleasant. Pleasures weaken when one is not at full concentration with their senses. 7 - Happiness is the being-at-work of virtue, so the virtue of the best part in man brings the most happiness. But this is only true to the extent that the divine is present. One should strive to be as close to immortal and the most powerful in oneself. 8 – Contemplation does not require things in the way generosity requires money. So complete happiness is contemplation. Happiness belongs to something the more it has the capacity to contemplate. 9 - Habits are like soil that nourishes seeds.
  17. Book II 3 – Virtue is an attitude to that produces the best actions, concerning pleasure and pain. The beautiful, the advantageous, and the pleasant lead to choice. The ugly, the harmful, and the painful lead to avoidance. 4 – Virtue is not just acting in a way that a virtuous person acts, but doing it in the right way (knowingly for their own sake being in a stable condition). 6 – Virtues are active conditions that make a human being good, from which they are at work well. When a person is at-work well according to being human, then they are made good by their active condition. In terms for what is best and what is done well, virtue is an extreme. Virtue does not always involve a need beyond itself. Book III 1 – To endure terrifying things without pain is courage, but with pain is cowardice. Acting on ignorance is unwilling when the person is regretful; acting on ignorance is willing otherwise. Ignorance of advantage is not unwilling, it is actually primarily depravity. I'm not sure what this means, but it seems to me depravity in the sense of having no use of reason with regard to the advantage. 2 – Choice is a type of willing. Choice is for the means to an end, wishing is for the end. 6 - Courageous people give up hope of safety, but not like those who are hopeful, because of experience. 7 - Courageous people endure things because it is beautiful to do so, or because not doing so is shameful 8 - Being driven out to danger because of pain is not courage. This is about passion, not beauty. It would be much like a bull angered by a red cape, or a boar chasing a hunter after being stabbed. Book IV 1 – Those who exceed in receiving take money from everywhere without regard for where it comes from. This would apparently be people who don't have regard for the source of things, like people who were born into wealth but never bothered to learn about attaining that wealth. 2 – The vulgar spend a lot on small occasions. This would be portrayals of rich people in circumstances like a giant feast for breakfast on just a normal day. 3 – If being great-souled is being worthy of what is greatest, then what is greatest in each virtue would belong to them. Great-souled people are inclined to do favors of greater worth in return. They don't simply want to return a favor of equal worth, but beyond that. 5 – Bitter people carry a burden because they are not open about it, and no one can persuade them as a result. Of course you can't persuade someone about a burden when they can't even share that there is one. 9 - A decent person does not willingly do bad things, so they don’t feel ashamed. A sense of shame for decent people is therefore hypothetical. After all, in this way, if a decent person knows which actions would cause a sense of shame, they would not willingly perform these actions in the first place. People who are not decent I don't think would consider what their actions would cause, so they could actually feel shame. Book V 1 – Aristotle treats justice as complete virtue because it can be used in relation to someone else. This seems to be justice as in the law and community. He does not seem to be talking about justice in terms of how to treat friends according to what they deserve. 2 – Bad consequences to another person as a result of vice is an incomplete example of justice. 5 – A city that does not pay back evil seems to be slavery, while not paying back good prevents exchange. I'm thinking that if bad things are not dealt with, then the people of the city are at the mercy of that evil. Not paying back good things would make outside people less willing to trade since full benefit cannot be gained from that trade. Communities arise from trade that is equalized. This creates the need for currency. 9 – Injustice is never willing because no one wishes for injustice, and no one acts contrary to their wishes. You can’t do injustice to yourself because if you want to be unjust towards yourself, it wouldn’t really be injustice, but harm. 11 – Aristotle thinks that suicide is injustice to the city. According to him, you actually can commit injustice towards yourself by means of the irrational part of the soul in relation to the rational part. Book VI 2 – Choice is desire plus rational understanding for the sake of something. 3 – Examples are a source of universals. In a way, universals are made up of examples, and the examples are the things being universalized. Universals are not completely separate from examples in the real world. 5 – Practical judgment is deliberating well about good and advantageous things. People don’t deliberate about what can be otherwise, so it is not knowledge, at least by Aristotle's definition of knowledge. It is not art because it is not about making. It reveals truth actively with reason, and concerns action. 7 – Knowledge and intellect are directed at the most honorable things. Practical judgment is about human good, not necessarily what is most honorable in existence. Practical judgment isn't about what a super human would do, or anything else that is not human. 9 – People don’t deliberate about what they know. 12 – Health produces health in the sense that health is active and at work. Practical judgment is the same way.
  18. Nicomachean Ethics translated by Joe Sachs Book 1 1 - The ends of master arts are more worthy of choice. That is, the wider field encompasses more, so it is more worthy of choice. 2 – The city is more complete to achieve and preserve. Aristotle is describing how in his view, living in the city is a more complete human life, especially to achieve and preserve it. 5 – There are 3 ways of life: enjoyment, politics, contemplation. But this seems to leave out arts like medicine and carpentry? 6 – One form of good is what is pursued for its own sake. So that means there will be good in itself, and useful things. But not all things are good in the same form like with pleasure or honor. 7 – Happiness is life consisting of how humans are at work. 8 - Virtue should be pleasant in itself in the way that one is pleased by what they are passionately devoted to. One should be devoted to virtue. 10 – Something beautiful shines through when one bears misfortune. That is, those who act in the most beautiful way possible given the circumstances. 13 - The vegetative part could not be part of human intellect because it is especially active during sleep.
  19. Book XI (K) 1 – Species might be sources because they are indivisible. General classes might be sources because when they are destroyed, others are destroyed with them. I'm thinking this means that the destruction of something encompasses more when there are broader characteristics involved compared to the narrow characteristics of a species. If 3 – Being is traced back or is led back to one thing common. 6 – Things can’t seem to be opposite to different people unless one of them has a damaged sense organ. What is white to one person would not seem like it is black to another person, unless one person has damaged vision. 9 – Being-at-work is difficult to define, according to Aristotle. Book XII (Λ) 1- There are four types of things: perceptible, everlasting, destructible, and motionless. 2 – There are three sources: the articulation of a contrary, its deprivation, and material. 3 – Material is what changes, form is what it changes into. 6 – The motionless, independent everlasting thing cannot be potency. It must be at-work without material. There is no way for it to be otherwise, since it would grow weary and decay if it were material. I wonder though if this could be pure energy, if this would fit the limitations set by Aristotle. 7 – I think he might be saying that the motionless thing causes things to move by other things being pulled towards it, simply through its presence, and maybe that it is the cause of anything that can be thought about. Why isn’t work also pleasure? This motionless thing is a thinking - that thinks by itself - that partakes in the very thing it thinks about. So, it always has the things that the intellect is receptive of. It has to have them because it is always at work. This seems to fit nicely into a modern panpsychist view, where perhaps this motionless thing is the simplest degree of consciousness that is capable of nothing more than recognizing its own existence. 9 – The motionless thing can’t be a potency of thinking because then sometimes it will not be at work. If it thinks things outside itself then those things would be more honorable. In terms of kinds of knowns that make something, the thing without material is both what the knowledge is concerned with and the activity of thinking it. 10 – The cause of motion makes form and material one. Book XIII (M) 3 – The greatest forms of the beautiful are order, symmetry, and determinateness. 9- Number and magnitude are separate. 10 – All knowledge is universal; the sources of being must be universal and not independent. This is potency. But knowledge-at-work is not universal. Sight sees a universal of color simply because what it sees is a color. If intensity were an independent thing, it would be indivisible therefore not infinite. Book XIV (N) 1 – One is a measure. Everything has a measure that is standard. Measure is indivisible in its kind of relation to perception. Things that are the same share a common measure. This chapter is perhaps the most direct connection to Objectivist epistemology regarding concept formation in all the works of Aristotle. 4 – Attaching goodness to one would attach badness to multitude, since good is the opposite of bad, and one is the opposite of multitude.
  20. I don't see how this follows. Just because for an entity to be means that it is the sum total of all its characteristics, doesn't also mean that pereceiving the entity involves pereceiving all characteristics of it. After all, perceiving external objects doesn't cause those objects to be, or the characteristics of the object to be. As for internal objects, you do cause them to be, and the characteristics of those objects to be, but this isn't the perception you are talking about. That's imagination. What you are saying I think is interesting regard to imagination, and what it means to imagine something particular, but that's not the topic. Also, this part of your argument sounds like abusing the ambiguity of saying "we perceive entities" - those sort of statements could be interpreted as 'all' of entities, or 'some' of entities. Since interpreting this as 'all' leads to absurdities as you said, we should interpret this as 'some'. So we are still left with 2. I don't think a malfunction of perception is a good way to argue for the way perception operates. Literally speaking, it is how perception does not operate. Anyway, it might be more accurate to say that these people see a confusing array of parts, not integrated into wholes or entities. They are seeing objects of some sort, insofar as the characteristics are still on something (things that us with normal perception recognize as parts). Although maybe your point to something like "what we call an entity depends on perception, in the sense that calling something an entity depends how you can automatically integrate part of an entity into a whole". Then again, you aren't talking about the psychological process of automatic perceptual integration.
  21. Book VIII (H) 2 – If thinghood is the cause of being, one must look for what is responsible for being. 3 – Independent things are like numbers because if you add or subtract anything, they are no longer the same. They are complete of a particular nature. 4 – Articulation that includes cause is the formal cause. Book IX (Θ) 1 – Potency is a source of change in some other thing or in the same thing as other. 2 – Potencies that include reason are capable of contrary effects. That's why people can be bad or good. 4 – I don’t understand this chapter at all. 5 – Whatever something desires, is what it does, whenever what it is capable of is present and that something approaches its object. Psychologically, this would mean everyone does what they desire as long as there are no obstacles and people perceive those desires. I'd say this is why behavior can be predicted, and why people are not totally indeterministic. 6 – Actions without ends are not complete. Being at work is complete. 7 – Being-in-potency is when things are in virtue of themselves and nothing stands in the way. 8 – A thing the same in form and at-work takes precedence in time. I think this means that a mover comes before a potential. Being-at-work comes before thinghood, like man to boy. A boy (despite being what this thing is right now) grows towards being a man, and the nature of what he is, is determined by the work of being a man. When material is at-work, it is in the form that it was going toward(when it was just a potency as a material). 9 - In geometrical figures the things inside them are discovered by being drawn, so their being-at-work is in contemplation. Book X (I) 1 – To be one is to be the primary measure of each class of things. Every amount is known by what is one. This one is a standard of measure as an irreducible unit. A measure is the same kind of thing as what it measures. This suggests that if you form a class of things, they can only be made universal with a measurement. That way, everything being measured is necessarily the same kind of thing. Also, the measurement is standard and consistent because the amount that the measurement even is, is known by what is one. 3 – Things differ in genus that do not have common material and do not turn into one another. 4 – Contrary things are spoken of with one of the contrary things viewed as a deprivation. Good as the presence of something that is good, bad as the deprivation of good. 6 – The one is what measures multitude. One measures, multitude is measured. They are opposed in this way. 7 – In-between things are composed of opposites. Something in-between good and bad as characteristics of both. 8 – The genus is the material of the species. Things that differ in species are a contrariness. 9 – The articulation makes a difference in species, but material and articulation does not. There is no contrary in the last one. This idea is confusing to me.
  22. No one anywhere was claiming that they literally halt infection and transmission.
  23. Book VII (Z) 1 - Thinghood is primary in every sense of the word. 3 - One’s job is to make what is good, be good, for each person, out of the things that are good for each one. I interpret this as the good only existing at-work when the good of something is brought about by action in relation to what is good for the actor. Perhaps Aristotle thinks that the good exists itself in potency but it isn't anything in actuality until and unless someone acts for their own good. 5- A definition is a statement about what it is for something to be, of independent things primarily. 6 - If the good itself and being good are different, then being good is not actually good. Being good should belong to the good itself. Form and substance could not be distinguished because you can’t put a name on every kind of thing there is for something to be. It would be like a form of what it is to be what it is to be a horse. 7 - When creating things by art, it begins from thinking from the source and form, and production is the conclusion of thinking. Health is a pattern and knowledge in the soul. 9 - The primary thing responsible for making something is part of what is made. 10 - Letters of a syllable are parts of the form. Not even all the letters are in the articulation a syllable. This seems to be that we can articulate part of the form, but something is always left out in that articulation. Maybe this includes images in memory? Parts of a thing's articulations belong to form, the articulation is of the universal. There is no definition of form for composites. Composites are known directly by contemplation or perception. When this is no longer active it is unclear what they are, but they have universal articulation. Certainly this means that the form is itself neither a universal nor a easily defined thing. 11 - Aristotle points put that one should determine if the soul has a different material. 12 – The form and thinghood bring to completion a difference that is brought into being from a difference. 15 - You can't define the form (of a particular) because it will consist of words already known. Particulars are always unique, so you would always end up defining something abstract that isn't concretely singular. 16 - Form is not one applied to many because it can’t point out what is independent and distinct. 17 - There is something that makes a syllable a syllable rather than just letters. That something is the form.
  24. These works are not normally given this name, but it seems appropriate because everything here is about psychology in particular. Sense and the Sensible translated by J. I. Beare A lot of this involves discussing the elements in relation to the nature of the sense organs themselves, like the eye being moist. I suppose this is the closest thing to looking at the organic chemistry and cellular composition of the sense organs. Aristotle spent a lot of time figuring out if more than one object can be perceived at the same exact moment in time. He eventually concludes that we can. He also speaks of magnitudes where intervals might be imperceptible because they are so small. I think of this like the way you can't literally see things in a constant stream. There are in fact gaps. Logically, it would seem that you can never really perceive wholes. The solution is that the dimensions of an object are not immediately present, in the sense you can see 5 feet ahead but don't actually know that it is 5 feet. The reasoning here is confusing but ultimately it seems that the point is if you happen to see 5 feet ahead, you don't need to say that you perceive with exact precision 5 feet ahead to actually perceive 5 feet ahead. You don't need the exact dimensions to say that you see something. Memory translated by Joe Sachs All things thought about are given a quantity even when none is given to start. This is possible through the primary power of perception, the sort that makes perception of motion and time possible. Memory always has an image. Since memory requires the perception of time, images are an attribute of the perceiving power. Recollection is a type of reasoning about experiences one had before. Sleep translated by J. I. Beare Aristotle thought that all organs must lose power when they work beyond their time limit, and this is when sleep is necessary. Since all the senses go off at the same time, it is a common and controlling organ of perception that causes sleep or makes possible for it to happen at all. This organ is the heart, but digestion starts sleep as a process. Dreams translated by J. I. Beare Dreaming is an activity of the faculty of sense perception, but in terms of presentation. Illusion caused by disease affects the same faculty that produces the same effects in dreams. When we perceive something, a remnant remains afterwards, such as colors remaining in the sensory field after looking at the colored thing. After this, people are easily deceived by sense perception in the case of emotions affecting the way one judges what they see. This happens during waking, and since during sleep the senses are powerless, sense perception is displayed anyway. The result is how dreams come about. All of this amount to what I would say is a theory of dreams based on psychological reasoning. Divination in Sleep translated by J. I. Beare God doesn't send dreams of divination because commonplace people receive them but not the best people. And it can't just be from reasoning out what will necessarily occur at a very specific location because it surpasses the wit of man. So these dreams can only be causes, signs, or coincidences. They can be signs in the sense of hearing a bomb go off in your dream but it was actually only something small that felt. They can be causes in the sense of being inspiration for things when you are awake. Length and Shortness of Life translated by G. R. T. Ross Aristotle doesn't say anything especially notable other than he thought that longevity was about a ratio of moisture and size. Youth, Old Age, Life and Death, and Respiration translated by G. R. T. Ross Respiration is usually just treated as a way to reduce the heat in an animal. Larger animals have more need of cooling. Animals like fish that live in the water don't need to respire because the water cools them down enough. But not cetaceans and whales because they have lungs so they cool themselves with air. I'm surprised that other thinkers understood that fish do breathe by means of the gills and taking in air that is in the water, but Aristotle argued that fish do not.
×
×
  • Create New...