concerning ontology

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » concerning ontology

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:09 pm
When Wittgenstein says "back to the rough ground" why does ontology always seem to want to do the opposite? Does this imply something about what drives its seeming endlessness?

Ontology seems very adaptive. If someone could assert its end, then wouldn't it be in the nature of the subject and its drive and question that it would adapt itself to continue to exist regardless of its being claimed to have ended if one were to assert such a thing?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:15 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Back to rough ground, except the "ground" is being. We need ontology to find a rough ground? Or are the objects in our everyday life beings? What is it that organizes the flux of sensation into objects in a causal network? I think the TLP is a supreme piece of negative ontology.

Of course there are better and worse ways to consider what beings are, what Being is. From Parmenides to Wittgenstein. Are things anything more than conceptions? What are abstract logical propositions? What sort of being do they have? Abstract being?

Is existence a property? I personally don't need the term ontology, but I'm fond of it.

Anyway, this is a great idea for a thread. Thanks. Smile
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 12:41 am
@Holiday20310401,
Ontology as I understand it (I am no professional philosopher) is the search for the most fundamental unifying prinicple of reality (being, existence).

For materialism matter is the most unifying concept or principle.
For Idealism, mind is the most unifying concept or principle.
For a process philosophy person like me, it is process (events) which unify reality.

In dealing with ontology, it is always a metaphysical question, and thus lies in the realm of metaphysical assumption or rational speculation but fundamentally is not a scientific question or one solvable by purely objective or empirical means. Ones assumptions about the most unifying or fundamental principle of reality undoubtedly has profound implications in answering other fundamental metaphysical questions (free will, determinism, god, values, ethics, aesthetics, etc.). It is "rough ground".
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 12:11 pm
@prothero,
prothero;173298 wrote:
Ontology as I understand it (I am no professional philosopher) is the search for the most fundamental unifying prinicple of reality (being, existence).

For materialism matter is the most unifying concept or principle.
For Idealism, mind is the most unifying concept or principle.
For a process philosophy person like me, it is process (events) which unify reality.

In dealing with ontology, it is always a metaphysical question, and thus lies in the realm of metaphysical assumption or rational speculation but fundamentally is not a scientific question or one solvable by purely objective or empirical means. Ones assumptions about the most unifying or fundamental principle of reality undoubtedly has profound implications in answering other fundamental metaphysical questions (free will, determinism, god, values, ethics, aesthetics, etc.). It is "rough ground".


Well said. And talk of rough ground is already an implicit ontology. It doesn't matter if one likes the term or not. All humans have at least some sloppy ontology. Attacks on metaphysics are always metaphysical.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 01:41 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Heidegger remarks that ontology, the study of being qua being, has become burdened by several thousands of years of philosophical discussion, and thus he suggests that to renew our own thinking we return to the earliest philosophers to whom the subject was fresh. This might well be the "rough ground" of which Wittgenstein writes.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:13 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;173468 wrote:
Heidegger remarks that ontology, the study of being qua being, has become burdened by several thousands of years of philosophical discussion, and thus he suggests that to renew our own thinking we return to the earliest philosophers to whom the subject was fresh. This might well be the "rough ground" of which Wittgenstein writes.


I think you are dead on. I think that the TLP is a first-class negative ontology. Sensation just is. Emotion is. We bury the isness of the world beneath our delimiting abstractions.

But this "rough ground" is often interpreted in a limiting lazy way, I think. It's a retreat from the "problem," rather than an attempt at the solution which results in the vanishing of the problem. Smile
 
north
 
Reply Wed 18 Aug, 2010 12:27 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:

Back to rough ground, except the "ground" is being. We need ontology to find a rough ground? Or are the objects in our everyday life beings? What is it that organizes the flux of sensation into objects in a causal network? I think the TLP is a supreme piece of negative ontology.

Of course there are better and worse ways to consider what beings are, what Being is. From Parmenides to Wittgenstein. Are things anything more than conceptions? What are abstract logical propositions? What sort of being do they have? Abstract being?

Is existence a property? I personally don't need the term ontology, but I'm fond of it.

Anyway, this is a great idea for a thread. Thanks. Smile




from my dictionary defining ontology ;

" The branch of meta-physics dealing with the philosphical theory of reality, including consideration of the universal and necessary characteristics of all existence ; also a particular theory of reality ."

the universal and necessary basic characteristics is physical form

hence , galaxies , stars , planets , moons etc and life forms
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Thu 19 Aug, 2010 05:16 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:

Attacks on metaphysics are always metaphysical.


See: http://groups.able2know.org/philforum/topic/4405-1
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » concerning ontology
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/01/2014 at 06:21:10