The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.

New answers tagged

1

The interpretation of QM via act and potency is most promising so far. You can check the book: Aristotle's revenge by Edward Feser. It is a good book that defends Aristotelian notions of act and potency, but it correctly shows that they are necessary presuppositions for modern science. Pretty much, QM is a viewpoint of reality where you look almost ...


0

Yes, there is some interesting things being written in this direction. I would recommend Dr. Wolfgang Smith as a reference, but there is some mistakes and clarification that are needed in this approach. The first thing is an ontological distinction between the physical world and our world, and the distinction between the mathematical description and the ...


4

Eudaimonia, happiness, and well-being The standard definition of eudaimonia used to be that it denotes happiness. In recent decades a more satisfactory rendering has been found in notions such as those of well-being and human flourishing. These are far better than the older, 'happiness'. 'Happiness' suggests a merely pleasant and enjoyable state or ...


1

There isn't any difficulty with the truth or falsehood of statements about future events. Consider the two following statements: (1) There will be a sea battle tomorrow. (2) There will not be a sea battle tomorrow. Each of these statements is either true or false. If one is true, then the other is false. Obviously, we don't know the future, but ...


2

According to Andrea Iacona Aristotle in Chapter 9 of On Interpretations believed that the disjunction of a proposition about the future or its negation was true, but the individual disjuncts were neither true nor false. Consider these two statements: (1) There will be a sea battle tomorrow. (2) There will not be a sea battle tomorrow. Neither of ...


Top 50 recent answers are included