Dmitry Chernikov’s Blog

What makes something a person? Nozick says that it is “being an I,” a self. Unfortunately, “being an I” is hardly illuminating. Does it mean self-awareness? But animals, too, especially higher apes, can apparently recognize themselves, say, in a mirror. They must have a sense, however attenuated, of their identity. Does it mean “self-identity”? But, [...]

Nozick keeps talking about value when he really means virtue. For example, “There are some individuals whose lives are infused with values, who pursue values with single-minded purity and intensity, who embody values to the greatest extent. These individuals glow with a special radiance.” (Philosophical Explanations, 436) This is so ridiculous, it is almost cute. [...]

Is there such a thing as beauty if there is no one around to appreciate it or to consider it beautiful? Without rational creatures and God, would there be truth; for example, true propositions? Here we have to be careful to distinguish the good itself from loving the good, or the truth itself from thinking [...]

Or fact and value. There is only one way to connect them, and that is via the link between ends and means. For example, Fact Value I want X. Therefore, I ought to do Y in order to attain X. I want to be good and righteous. Therefore, I ought to obey God’s law. I [...]

Hopefully it’ll stimulate discussions.

By a “transcendental” I mean one of 4: truth, beauty, goodness, and unity, as well as “being” which undergirds them all. These again correspond to the 4 temperaments (Rational, Artisan, Guardian, and Idealist), as well as, for example, the 4 dimensions of human experience: intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual. And so on. They are convertible [...]

Isn’t it interesting how each president seems worse than his predecessor? I’m nostalgic for Bill Clinton, and I know that I’ll miss W under the next fuhrer, provided, of course, it’s not Ron Paul.

I must have already mentioned the 4 theories of punishment, corresponding to the 4 temperaments: retribution (Guardian), deterrence (Rational), rehabilitation (Idealist), and condemnation or protection of society (Artisan). Nozick focuses on the first of these and notes correctly that it involves a rebellion against or flouting the correct values or, put simply, the good. Punishment [...]

In politics you are always waiting, watching for signs of a capitalist revolution, yet it never seems to come. It’s an awful way to spend your time, even as a hobby, because nothing happens, at least in the short-run. But even long-run hopes should morph into some kind of short-term success, and they never do. [...]

You’ve got to love the guy calling Paul “reactionary.” The idea is that he is against “progress,” progress being defined in the Marxian manner of social systems replacing one another either gradually or by way of a revolution according to a mystical Hegelian dialectic and the alleged law of the unfolding of history: the slave-owning [...]

In addition to a true belief that p, Robert Nozick proposes two more conditions for some person S’s having knowledge: (3) If p were not true, S would not believe that p. (4) If p were true, then S would believe that p. (Philosophical Explanations, 172ff) (3) implies that S’s evidence must not lead him [...]

And that pertains to the issue of skepticism. Indeed, even if we are brains-in-vats stimulated by computers run by evil psychologists or are fully deceived by an evil demon, the these psychologists or this demon must themselves not be deceived but know the truth. I’d even say that it is inconceivable that no one knows [...]

Says Michael S. Rozeff. And then dissolve the states into counties. What people don’t grasp and desperately need to is that the US is not a community like a church or a company or a charity or even, with some qualifications, a town or county. It’s just a disjunctive collection of people each doing his [...]

Do natural laws exist or not? Do they have any ontological reality? In Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview Moreland and Craig present three theories of natural law, “natural” here meaning mechanistic and therefore excluding both randomness and intelligent design. The first of these is descriptive; the other two, prescriptive. The regularity theory considers laws [...]

Remarkably, Robert Nozick partially rehabilitates this seeming paragon of a meaningless statement. In the chapter on why there is something rather than nothing in Philosophical Explanations, he first considers “unegalitarian” theories of existence in which either existence or non-existence is given a privileged status from which its opposite is a deviation and must be explained. [...]

David Gordon discusses this book (Robert H. Frank, Falling Behind: How Rising Inequality Harms the Middle Class) in Mises Review. I have some comments, as well. 1. Has any empirical work been done which would suggest that people are indeed highly motivated to keep up with the Joneses? Or is that supposed to be self-evident? [...]

According to this lovely article, a good though fallible justification can be a sign of the truth of a proposition, and also a sign of having knowledge of this proposition, given that it is true: You have no means other than your justification… of determining whether the belief is true; and because the justification is [...]

Johnny-Dee considers an example of a Gettier case which we can put this way. Suppose that both Nogot and Havun are in the room with you. (1) You have a well-justified false belief that Nogot owns a Ford. (2) Hence you have a well-justified belief that someone in the room owns a Ford. (3) That [...]

Here is how it all fits together: A model of the human soul. Chakra Location Color Description Virtue Gift Crown Violet Speculative reason: Judgment concerning the truth Wisdom Wisdom Brow Indigo Speculative reason: Apprehension of the truth Understanding Understanding Knowledge Knowledge Throat Blue Practical reason Prudence Counsel Heart Green Emotional soul Justice Piety Solar Plexus [...]

The original argument runs as follows: Even a fool can conceive of a being than which no greater can be thought. This being would then exist in the understanding. But if it existed only in the understanding but not in reality, a greater than it being could be thought: one that existed both in the [...]