Eiuol

Even though cosmology isn't a title used normally for these works, I'm using it to convey that these works are scientific theories (by Aristotle's definition of science) about how the cosmos works.
The Heavens translated by J. L. Stocks
Book I
1 - Anything divisible in 3 dimensions is divisible in all dimensions. 3 things are also what makes 'all' a relevant idea, because otherwise 2 things is simply 'both'. 
2 - Up and down are contraries of each other, but there is no movement contrary to circular movement. Since the elements move either up or down, their contrary movements would not be circular. So, circular movement would be the natural movement of some other kind of body.
4 - There are an infinite number of paths along a circle that pass through the same 2 points.
5 - The body that moves in a circle is not infinite but has a limit.
7 - The infinite cannot be acted upon or act on other things. If the lesser takes longer to act on the greater, then the lesser would need infinite time to act on the greatest. The infinite cannot interact with anything either.
9 - Aristotle explains how there can only be one heaven, that is, there is only one world that contains everything. It's explained in the sense that the world of forms doesn't exist. The universe is a particular and material thing because it is perceivable.
Every body within the world is perceivable. There is no body outside the world. Because of all this, there is only one world. The world already contains all that there is.
12 - If a thing that exists for infinite time is, it at once exists and does not. If time were not definite, there would be neither a shortest nor longest time. Since it exists for infinite time, we can assume it to be actualized the entire span as destroyed. But also existing. Therefore, it is impossible for something that exists forever to be destructible.
Book II
1 - Heaven is unaffected by mortal discomfort and it is effortless. There is nothing to prevent it from moving according to its own nature. Because of the impossibility of a soul existing painlessly in this condition, it is not a soul that makes the heavens eternal; it is why it must be devoid of all rational satisfaction.
2 - Aristotle says that the heaven is animate, but he just said that it has no soul? Either there is something funny with the translation or it is supposed to be about internally directed movements but not a soul per se, like those of a robot.

The interviewer in the preceding is Eiuol.

I only have passing knowledge of these people. But as far as tracing influences with philosophy, Spinoza seems to be a turning point of some kind. On the other hand, it might be more about romanticism starting with Goethe, and the fact that he thought of science as something different than physicists of the time, focusing on biology. It's a sign of treating living things as something great with many values and characteristics and emotions and causes. Physicists like Galileo or Newton were plenty happy with being reductionists about reality, reducing causality to primarily things bouncing around, and treating abstractions in a platonic or Christian way. When life is thought of as a complete totality, it becomes easier to worry about what would happen when that process ends. If life is an incidental feature of the soul, and when the body dies, the soul does not, then the end of life doesn't really matter much in one's existence. 

As for the origin of all these things, within philosophy anyway, I wonder if a lot of it stems from Spinoza. He seemed to make it possible for philosophers to break from Christianity in a meaningful way, artists as well, without complete abandonment for some vague divinity for those who couldn't let go. But because Spinoza thought that God ultimately didn't and couldn't care about you one way or another, that leaves you wide open to the question: "if God doesn't care about me, now what?" 
 

Physics translated by Joe Sachs
1 - Aristotle distinguishes what is clear by nature versus clear to us. Clear to us is what is clear in terms of how we come to understand the world, in the way that dog is known before animal, which is also messy and filled with many possible conceptual distinctions. What is clear by nature is what is clear in terms of logical structure, that is, in the way that after making distinctions, nature becomes more understandable.
2 - There can be one and many at the same time in terms of potential and actual.
3 - If being is caused by something, then the cause could not have been, because there was no something that was being. That is, in my wording, being would be caused ex nihilo.
What is not is not something in particular.
4 - To know something composite is to know how many things it is made of and what they are. 
If no animal is infinite, then its parts are always finite. My understanding is that being can't be infinite because if all substances are finite, then any parts will be finite as well.
 
5 - Opposites come into being from each other. 
A house doesn’t come into being absolutely from nothing whatever but from parts and materials. 
6 - Since two independent things can’t be derived from one another, there would need to be an underlying third thing.
7 - A statue comes from bronze, not that bronze becomes a statue, because it comes from something that persists. Education comes from uneducation no longer persisting. 
8 - Dogs come from dogs yet we don’t say that dogs come from animals, since animal persisted all along. The dog is animal incidentally, because animal is not a substance but a predicate in this case, which means apparently that the dog comes into being by the nature of the other dog. Animal is not a being itself, so it is not animal literally speaking that makes the dog come into being. 
It's no wonder then that Aristotle does not use simply a handful of animals to investigate how animals generate other animals. It is specific animals that bring about their offspring, not some broad form from beyond that literally brings the new dog into being.
 

The History of Animals translated by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson
History in this context seems to denote a broad description of the lifecycle of animals, which is done first with basic anatomical features, then describing processes like sexual reproduction.
Book I 
Aristotle says that the the back of the head is empty in all animals. It isn't as if he didn't ever cut open a head, because he mentions the cerebellum. He also mentions connections with the brain from the eyes and the nose. What does he mean by empty when he already describes how the head is completely filled up? The back of the head might refer to below the cerebellum.
II
An entire chapter is devoted to the chameleon. Elephants are also mentioned quite a bit.
III
The description of systems with veins in particular may hold well, but the proof of its accuracy is not equally easy in all cases. This emphasizes the observational nature of the book, because the reason is that veins are not easily seen.
IV 
Most sentences make no mention of who is doing the observing and who is doing the recording. But one sentence says "they tell us that...", which makes me wonder if all of this is collected by a research team as guided by Aristotle as the project lead.
V
I don't know why some animals are thought to be spontaneously generated, specifically animals like sponges, sea anemones, certain kinds of shelled animals, and some kinds of insects that grow from grubs, and some others. My guess is that these conditions are all met: it is hard to find or observe mating, hard to observe the eggs, and the young only appear in very specific materials. The idea also seems to acknowledge that life originates somewhere. The first life forms came from inanimate material. So implicitly, Aristotle and his students realized that life is a natural part of the world and does not need conscious guidance to appear. 
Elsewhere, in the context of eggs, it is mentioned how it is possible that life can be engendered by methods besides mating and copulation. But the working assumption is that there is no other method since none is known. So since we know now that some animals reproduce asexually and other animals indirectly mate, I'm sure that this theory of spontaneous generation would be easily fixed.
VI
There is extensive description of how the chicken embryo develops in the egg. It's understood that different parts develop in different orders. I wonder though if Aristotle developed his major theories about teleology from these observations. Life is clearly a developing process going towards some developed end, and no prior step is "complete". 
VII
Chapter 7 doesn't seem to fit because it's about animals in general. Same as Chapter 8. Chapter 7 says all animals develop in the same way, but it isn't clear what span of time "develop" refers to. Since it talks about when birth happens, develop properly refers to how the embryo develops. So even spontaneously generated animals would develop this way, that is, gradually and in parts. Since these 2 chapters diverge so far from the book (which is exclusively about human development), the editing must be off.
VIII
Aristotle said that the life of animals can be divided into procreation and feeding. He recognized that variety of animals and types of animals depend on locality, as well as their character in terms of how they act in their environment. These are all things implicitly necessary to understand evolution, so it makes sense why biologists can get so much use out of Aristotle's thinking about life.
IX
Much is said about animal intelligence. In particular, I like the observations about dolphins. Aristotle clearly acknowledges their capacity as social creatures, as well as elephants. There is a lot of detail about bees and of their social nature, not to mention the details about the hive. The message here is attention to detail, and looking at the world. 

Why is this bad?
Who has said or implied that they want to save the world from tyranny?
I don't know where you got this interpretation. He didn't believe in the permanent enslavement for most people, and said nothing in particular about there being some superior class that others serve. 

What's the big deal? If you like him reasonably well, I don't think this would change anything significantly. It doesn't sound like anything would change.
I don't think it is helpful to start thinking about whether you believe people would hate you if they knew what you were. You actually have no idea, except maybe that they don't agree about something. As I understand it, people generally do this to show what they think is a more respectful way to treat people. It won't necessarily be a big political statement, or self-righteousness. I don't like listing pronouns either, I think it is silly and irrelevant to even care about it. But beyond that, I don't think it's worth concerning yourself about. 
Bottom line though, I think you are wrong to say that this should be taken as a form of hostility.

Nothing massive, but some passages in her writing that characterize animal behavior as automatic as if they all drift like a jellyfish in terms of consciousness. I think she would need to expand on her notion of perception as more active than she had previously thought. This would not weaken any of her theories about grounding concepts in perception, if anything, it would strengthen the way she explains how concepts are abstract in nature yet practical. 

Can you be more precise about what you mean by self-awareness?
You could mean it like metacognition, awareness of one's thinking habits and methods, and monitoring one's thinking, and recognizing that you are the one acting. This would imply explicit awareness that one has made a certain kind of choice for particular reasons related to subsequence of thoughts or emotions.
Or you could mean it like internal awareness and perception. By that I mean in contrast with external perception (touch, smell, vision, etc.). This would be pain, pleasure, temperature, proprioception, and probably plenty more that I didn't even know had a particular name. Self-awareness is present at least to the extent that there is internal awareness of what is going on in the animals mind, although it lacks metacognition. Even more, external perception implies some internal perception, otherwise, the animal would not have a means to self-correct locomotion. The biological function of the external senses requires self correction. So, the extent that an animal has a range of internal perception, they would be self-aware.
Of course, metacognition is the widest range of internal perception using these explanations. So humans have the greatest capacity to be self-aware.
I would say self-reflective awareness is always conceptual. The nature of conceptual thought permits metacognition.

Not really, because you can accept the general claim that Biden is up to no good and that the laptop actually has bad stuff, while at the same time making QAnon movement supporters feel that their more extravagant claims are being validated. I don't think there's anything so extravagant going on that Bobulinski is really doing psyops, it's a standard presidential candidate scandal. But if you want to throw in an extra layer of stuff as if he's doing fantastic espionage, then I can just as legitimately claim that it's evidence he's pulling QAnon supporters out of the woodwork. 
How can I think that something he said is dangerous if I don't think he is even real? 
People in the QAnon movement are the dangerous ones precisely because Q is not real. I can back that up because you have already made a seditious statement: 
This is the kind of danger I mean. Fine if you even think that Biden is a major threat to America, but to say that the president should not even allow Biden to assume the presidency is borderline a call to violence against the US government. The only way this can happen is with violence; I know you don't mean that you want Trump to sit in the Oval Office and refuse to leave until security comes when they drag him out. I don't know if "worldwide" movement was meant to mock what I said about the QAnon being a threat. I'm not even concerned with the majority, only the people who might be further radicalized.

Eiuol,
The translations in The Complete Works of Aristotle (Barnes 1984) are evidently the most well-known by modern readers. It has by now made its way into a lot of personal libraries.
In reading the parts of ORGANON of interest to you, sooner or later one can also have the companions in Blackwell’s A Companion to Aristotle (2009) in:
Chapter 3 - Deductive Logic
Chapter 4 - Aristotle’s Theory of Demonstration
Chapter 5 - Empiricism and the First Principles of Aristotelian Science
Chapter 6 - Aristotle on Signification and Truth
(Sometimes there are line-by-line modern companions as well, in the Clarendon and in the Oxford Aristotle Series, but for only some of the works in ORGANON. For my current writing projects, I’ve been several days and will be a good many more with Clarendon’s Aristotle - Metaphysics Book Λ.)
I think, from your description of your interest in this pursuit, Eiuol, that these Blackwell chapters are at the right closeness to Aristotle’s text and are the right sectors within Aristotle’s text to be helpful, supposing you’ve not already gotten acquainted with those companions.

You missed the most important part: because this is preposterous and absurd, we should resolve the apparent contradiction. The theory it is based on must be fixed or a new theory must be proposed. Spoiler alert, they resolve the contradiction in the end. No one in the documentary claimed that the law of identity is invalid. 
Did you stop watching after 15 minutes?

That would be nice, but more like I'm exposing something that I say, and I think it's bad. I guess we could say that you weren't expecting some sort of... Spanish Inquisition.
It is still a method of asserting authoritarianism or dictatorship. Julius Caesar did the same sort of thing, where he used his own army to assert authority over the Senate to create the Roman empire. And as I recall, Machiavelli would argue that overt military action is less effective than making sure people love you and rally behind you rather than strictly using fear.
Having the charisma alone to convince the the military to stand down (without an existing mechanism of the government to accomplish the same thing) makes this general a military dictator. Maybe you like him, but he is still a dictator. No one is controlling that military except for the general. There is no check on the general. You rely on him to be virtuous and good, assuming that he would only use the military against the initiation of force. There is no example from history where there was a charismatic general where there was anything but dictatorship in the end. The only way I see to avoid this is to starting the government which immediately implements checks and balances, effectively a new constitution.

"[Reality] is something that humans actively participate in producing when their minds interact with their environments."
That's 11 minutes in just about.
It wouldn't be so insane if he meant something like "the society people live in is shaped by the way minds interact with the environment". That would be true, but obviously that doesn't mean each society is literally a different reality... It's like he forgot that when people say "ancient people lived in a different world" they don't literally mean a whole separate reality. 
My conclusion: Never go full subjectivist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wVagQ_LVd4
I find that he really was attempting to give a basis to say that indigenous people deserve respect. In a way, he sees the indigenous people (especially those exterminated by the Spanish) as offering worthless ideas and were thoroughly primitive, so the only way he could offer any value for them is to say that they lived in a literally different reality. They are so worthless to him that he has to create a whole separate reality for them. The truth is, people like the Inca had great ideas as well as bad ideas even compared to Europeans. He doesn't have to dismantle objective reality: If he actually cared about indigenous people, he would be telling us about what they got right about reality, especially the things that Europeans could not figure out.

You stated it as a fact. The to be restored president. If you meant he might be reelected, you would say that. If you meant that some Republican leadership are trying to get Trump into the presidency because they believe the election was stolen, you would say that. In fact, you would have said that right away when I asked you to clarify. 
What you did instead was provide a cryptic answer. You wanted me to divine your answer based on you stating that January 6 was an insurrection. That really has nothing to do with any of the above. Unless you are one of those nut jobs. You know, the people who want an insurrection so that Trump will be restored to the presidency. The people who actually use that language of restoration or reinstatement. No one else uses those terms in this context. In other words, you can claim those less extreme things, but you are also claiming the extreme things (but won't admit it). The more extreme QAnon belief in some upcoming event. Hence "to be" restored - you're waiting for the event to happen.
No, he just showed up after a very long hiatus.
Initially, maybe he thought nothing of it so forgot or didn't bother to say more. But he definitely didn't forget to address the question once I asked it. It was the first post in this thread. 
I agree with this - for different platforms. Not for moderated forums.

Please tell me that's a joke, that you're not one of those nut jobs. 

Soon I will be reading the entirety of the Organon, or more generally all the books within this one about reasoning and demonstration. I say reading group because my intent is to focus on Aristotle's writing without bringing much outside interpretation. I have enough background on Aristotle and Oism to guide reading discussions in a productive way. Not simply to understand what Aristotle said, but to integrate it all with furthering my study of other fields which for me are mostly psychology and neuroscience. If you have a different academic interest, like history or economics, that's even better, because we could apply the ideas to more contexts.
So, post here or send me a private message if you would like to join in. Weekly meetings would go well, we can work out how many chapters to read each time. Probably one hour meetings. I don't expect us all to have the same translation. Sometimes, different translations can be useful.
Secondly, does anyone have suggestions for which translations to use?

That makes sense. Maybe not designed for a student then, but more like those kind of problems where you know intuitively that there is a reasonable solution, but can't solve it yet because you need to be a little more creative. 

Greene is far worse; anyone who supports treasonous activity directly is about as bad as you can get. 

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 along the lines that it is something that compels action - in the sense that seeing an apple if you are hungry causes you to move towards it. Or any animal for that matter. The apple is the unmoved mover. This is why one way to notice volition is knowing that something has sense organs, and that it moves towards something on its own. The apple isn't the only cause to be sure, but it is a cause, a reason why. 
Yes, but there are many kinds of causes that occur simultaneously.
"He was hungry so he ate an apple." compared to "He wanted to be healthy, so he ate an apple."
The hunger caused eating. Seeking health also caused eating. In the first way, there are antecedent factors (ie the presence of hunger). In the second way, there is no antecedent factor for choosing to be healthy besides your focus on that future state of living. The future "caused" eating. So that's called a final cause. Yet that might not be a good enough reason why to fully explain free will from all relevant angles. 
Even if we lack the full explanation of free will, we can take for granted that we do in fact have free will, that it is not an illusion. 

It's not the most egregious loaded question I have ever seen, and they can even serve a purpose for the person asking besides trickery. But the prosecution didn't need to worry much about it because it was successfully addressed and didn't continue as an issue. 
Driving him to jail still wouldn't be the only possibility, another would be that he would die of a drug overdose anyway. Better to answer in a neutral way to avoid a bias of any sort: "well, I do know that if this didn't happen, he wouldn't have died in this way". There are hidden premises in the question as phrased. If you ask me, at best, Nelson asked a poorly phrased question where he failed to extract an argument. It looks like perhaps he recognized that the answer was fair and moved on. But it was a potential way to find a new path for an argument so I don't fault for asking. 

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. 

The third option: they achieved nirvana.
 

I firmly believe this is because Rand was frequently irrational about personal relationships, and her closest professional associates emulated this. The consequences were significant, not just a matter of personal dispute. Nathaniel Branden made significant contributions but he was essentially thrown to the curb and all his contributions ignored and denied. I'm sure there are many more examples.