Neo-Aristotelian

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Neo-Aristotelian

  • Birthday 01/12/1980

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Anonymous
  • Looking or Not Looking
    looking for female

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
  • Interests
    Philosophy, psychology, entomology, improvisational comedy, DJing

Recent Profile Visitors

1,010 profile views
  1. There's too much commentary in this thread to read, but I'll take a stab at the riddle [Disclaimer: Since the riddle is described as Objectivistic, I have to admit I don't know if my thoughts are Objectivistic, although I certainly lean Objectivist.]: [2] I'm not familiar with the terms "entity ontology" and "matter ontology." But I make a distinction between existents and entities, and in it, the former subsumes the latter. Thoughts of consciousness and characteristics of entities are also existents. I don't know the context behind Rand's saying that only entities exist. I'm
  2. It's said that emotions can cloud judgment. I've noticed that I can at times be certain of my judgment despite feeling strong emotions. In other times, I don't trust my judgment and choose to delay judgment until my emotions subside. This concerns me because I don't clearly know conceptually when I can trust my judgment given strong accompanying emotions. Additionally, it's arguable that we are always experiencing an emotional "cadence" in the background as a result of our attitude towards ourselves, others, the rest of existence, our sense of self-efficacy, and our sense of self-identity
  3. Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept). The decision-making process of choice involves considering concepts against other concepts. One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities. But what really adds to the complexity is that most human decisions involve higher level concepts, and higher level concepts are predicated upon other concepts, and those lower level concepts are predicated upon even lower level co
  4. I agree that causality is derived from entities and not linked by events (this mistake led to Hume's skepticism of causality). However, I disagree with what Peikoff said in OPAR: In other words, the possible number of actions of non-conscious entities—to not contradict Objectivism's tenet that human beings are capable of choice between multiple possible actions, I've taken the liberty to specify non-conscious entities—is necessarily one in any given circumstances. How is this validated? I would think that to know how many actions are possible for any entity, conscious or non-conscious, comes
  5. I'll first provide a short post as context. Then I'll provide an elaboration of my reasoning. I started this discussion elsewhere, so there may be some strange references, but nothing significant. Context: My thesis for free will: Free will is deterministic. I acknowledge that free will is our ability of choice, but choices are caused by mental contents. Introspection reveals that we make choices on the basis of mental contents. Example: If I possess the mental contents that the Blackjack dealer has 21 and that my well-being is a value, it will cause me to decide to fold; another person who