On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:45 PM, John F. Sowa wrote: (01)
> I don't want to get involved with defending Heidegger.
> On the other hand, the kind of logic one adopts does
> influence the kinds of ontological categories one might
> choose to represent by means of the symbols of that logic.
> For example, the quantifiers of predicate calculus
> (or any equivalent form, such as Peirce's graphs) are
> not well suited to dealing with continuous stuff,
> such as water.
> Even worse, what about stuff like happiness?
> "Happiness" seems to be a mass noun like "water",
> but it's even harder to measure or refer to. That
> makes it a prime category to be ignored. But does
> that mean it doesn't exist? (02)
I only denied the idea that there is no distinction between "the
study of formalisms" and "the study of being" (insofar as I even
understand the latter notion). I certainly agree that ontological
considerations might play a role in the choice of an appropriate
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)