Ontology

[anon]

@Faust

Anon - I’d say it was the opposite - it’s when we examine the question of exactly what it is that we encounter the thing-in-itself, which is an encounter with nothing.

Nice!

[Radiohead629]

@anon

If nothing gave rise to something, was it ever really nothing?

I didn’t claim that nothing gave rise to nothing. I’m just claiming it is intelligible to wonder whether there may have been a nothing that never gave rise to anything.

[Radiohead629]

@Faust

Radio - Yeah - he trades in a Edsel for a Corvair.

I don’t agree with you, but I know many an analytic philosopher who does

[anon]

@Radiohead629

@anon

I think you’ve somewhat misunderstood me. I’m with you to a large degree regarding metaphysics. But if we ignore the question of “exactly what it is”, we tend to go on seeing it as a “thing-in-itself”, which is our habit. We are metaphysicians in habit, in need of methods to overcome our delusions.

Which is how we get to Heidegger’s project of a “fundamental ontology” which overcomes the delusions and habits of traditional metaphysics.

I’ve never understood a word of Heidegger. If he’s brilliant I’ll be the last to know.

[Faust]

^What he said.

[Radiohead629]

@anon

I’ve never understood a word of Heidegger. If he’s brilliant I’ll be the last to know.

That surprises me. Whether or everything he says is false is one thing, and perhaps some of his writing is a little bit difficult to interpret, but I think most of Being and Time is pretty intelligible if you are willing to read it a few times. I don’t think Book I division I (the first half of Being and Time) is any more or less difficult or obscure than Kant’s first Critique.

[Nah]

@Faust

Nah -

You are asking us to believe your words.

But this is the case with every claim we make.

You can invite us to your home (with a good meal at your resto ) to verify by ourselves, for example.
There are many possibilities in the evaluation methods.

As long as well we are talking about well defined physical object within physical world, I don’t think there are lots of problem, unless we take extremely skeptical perspective that would doubt physical object/world.

And I think this is what happens in too many Philosophy classes - the extremes are presented first. They can be taken as the only philosophical positions by people who have taken on a few classes, and who have read only a few thinkers.

Possibly so.

But I think it’s beneficial to think in (opposing) extreme positions.
And I’m against limiting our perspectives, in general, because it can narrow our view ( or it can reduce our flexibility in taking different perspectives).

And again, I think the problem is the too much presumption by both writers/talkers and readers/listeners.
We are too unconscious, and we think that we can think.
But I’d say we are struggling in relatively dark corner for the most part.

Also, I think there is something related between our awareness and the idea of existence, aspiration/hope for (continued/absolute) existence.
And these types of underlying (often emotional) motivation can be pushing our thought with certain color/presumptions.

[Faust]

Radio - I can’t speak for anon, but I think that is our point.

[Radiohead629]

@Faust

Radio - I can’t speak for anon, but I think that is our point.

Fair enough!

[anon]

@Radiohead629

@anon

I’ve never understood a word of Heidegger. If he’s brilliant I’ll be the last to know.

That surprises me. Whether or everything he says is false is one thing, and perhaps some of his writing is a little bit difficult to interpret, but I think most of Being and Time is pretty intelligible if you are willing to read it a few times. I don’t think Book I division I (the first half of Being and Time) is any more or less difficult or obscure than Kant’s first Critique.

I must be particularly dense then. Maybe Faust is too.

I think Heidegger mumbles or something.

[matty]

@Faust

To generalise is to abstract the common partial properties if any object/event. If there is no common partial property, we simply cannot generalise.

What is the common partial property of all object/events?

Well, that’s exactly what ontologists have sought to establish, I suppose, so it depends on the approach that is taken. I don’t claim to have any definitive answer, only a set of partial sketches or perspectives to engage with. Realistically, I don’t actually want any answers in a definitive sense, because that would lead me, as you say, to pure religion, or, as I would also suggest, to pure science. Let me just say that I do not think that ontology can be conducted empirically or taxonomically, and that therefore it must remain suspect, as you have rightly recognised; a “true” ontology, then, has to be incredibly thorough and rigorous, in that it has to incorporate its own insufficiencies into its analysis.

Not that you’re ever going to agree with me about any of that or even see the point, of course!

[Faust]

Nah -

You can invite us to your home (with a good meal at your resto ) to verify by ourselves, for example.
There are many possibilities in the evaluation methods.

And Tom could be there. And the chair. Or not.

But I think it’s beneficial to think in (opposing) extreme positions.
And I’m against limiting our perspectives, in general, because it can narrow our view ( or it can reduce our flexibility in taking different perspectives

I don’t mean to disagree with that.

I just think a lot of these questions stem from a narrow view. And metaphysical lust, of course.

But I’d say we are struggling in relatively dark corner for the most part.

Which is why I think it makes sense to go with what you know, rather than what you don’t. I don’t think this is taught effectively, often.

Also, I think there is something related between our awareness and the idea of existence, aspiration/hope for (continued/absolute) existence.
And these types of underlying (often emotional) motivation can be pushing our thought with certain color/presumptions.

And, if I understand you, that is what i call metaphysical lust.

[Faust]

matty -

Well, that’s exactly what ontologists have sought to establish, I suppose, so it depends on the approach that is taken. I don’t claim to have any definitive answer, only a set of partial sketches or perspectives to engage with. Realistically, I don’t actually want any answers in a definitive sense, because that would lead me, as you say, to pure religion, or, as I would also suggest, to pure science. Let me just say that I do not think that ontology can be conducted empirically or taxonomically, and that therefore it must remain suspect, as you have rightly recognised; a “true” ontology, then, has to be incredibly thorough and rigorous, in that it has to incorporate its own insufficiencies into its analysis.

Not that you’re ever going to agree with me about any of that or even see the point, of course!

Yes - I almost mentioned science-as-religion.

If ontology is a suspect, it is standing over the body, with a smoking gun in its hand, saying “I shot him”.

[Radiohead629]

@Faust

And, if I understand you, that is what i call metaphysical lust.

haha, I like that.

Personally, I don’t understand why people hunger for eternal life. I could understand wanting a few thousand or maybe even a million years where you feel like you are in your late teens or 20s all the time, I guess. But really - eternal life? Meh.

[matty]

@Faust

If ontology is a suspect, it is standing over the body, with a smoking gun in its hand, saying “I shot him”.

Then it’s a good job this isn’t a murder inquiry…

[Faust]

Radio - I think, in philosophy, there has been a long-standing prejudice against the temporary, in favor of the permanent.

That the superlative is always preferable to the comparative.

That the best abstractions are the ultimate ones.

This got its start, for all intents and purposes, with Plato. His epistemology determines his politics - those who can devise and understand absolute abstraction are the Philosopher Kings.

Divine Right meets Philosophy.

[Radiohead629]

@Faust

Radio - I think, in philosophy, there has been a long-standing prejudice against the temporary, in favor of the permanent.

That the superlative is always preferable to the comparative.

That the best abstractions are the ultimate ones.

This got its start, for all intents and purposes, with Plato. His epistemology determines his politics - those who can devise and understand absolute abstraction are the Philosopher Kings.

Divine Right meets Philosophy.

Definitely agree with you - but I think the hunger for immortality is equally common to non-philosophers - more of a basic human tendency. I find it quite strange. But maybe I’m wrong - maybe people would be more than satisfied with an temporary afterlife as long as it lived up to the greatness of their expectations.

By the way - for those of you who doubt the intelligibility of the concept “nothing” or “non-being” I am curious - what do you expect to experience after your death?

[Faust]

And I will go further, about Plato, and say that his politics determines his epistemology.

[gib]

@Faust

Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive. Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is. Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom’s vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not. Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom’s walking, but surely Tom’s existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is.

I think this article starts off badly. Why should it be difficult at all to explain that Tom exists? Why is it even necessary to explain such a claim? Let’s say you give me a wooden chair for Christmas. A couple of years later, I burn the chair (completely) in my fire pit. Some time later, you ask about the chair, and I tell you that I have burned it, that it no longer exists.

What is difficult about that?

I agree that it’s easy to use the word ‘existence’ in everyday sentences, and we have no trouble understanding what it means. I think it becomes difficult when we expect this meaning to be easily broken down into more elementary components. The meaning of ‘existence’, like the meaning of many other words, might just be irreducible.

[Radiohead629]

@gib

I agree that it’s easy to use the word ‘existence’ in everyday sentences, and we have no trouble understanding what it means. I think it becomes difficult when we expect this meaning to be easily broken down into more elementary components. The meaning of ‘existence’, like the meaning of many other words, might just be irreducible.

Right. Like I said, the closest synonym for existence of I can think of is either just ‘being’ or 'being-there-ness." We also understand what we mean when we say that something is ‘not-there’ and so we understand what ‘not-being-there-ness’ is. But right, otherwise, it’s pretty much a most basic concept.