ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both needed

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Chris Partridge" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:34:58 +0100
Message-id: <006a01c7aba7$32058860$0200a8c0@POID7204>

VQ> What I
>say is:  once you accept the distinction between continuants and
>occurents, some of these definitions of avalanche speak of continuants,
>some of occurrents.  So the question 'is an avalanche an occurrent or a
>continuant' is ill-posed, since one does not know what you are asking
>about -- the mass of snow or its falling.  Once you do *not* accept the
>distinction, the question is even more ill-posed.    (01)

If I am investigating what can be a continuant or an occurrent - can I not
ask whether, when I am looking at an avalanche (whether there is any
definition or not), it makes sense to talk of there being with a continuant
or an occurrent or both - and how do I decide this. Say, for example, there
cannot, in principle, be an avalanche occurrent, then it does not make sense
for me to talk of one. What I would be interested in is some explanation of
what these principles are.    (02)

As Bill has noted, the question is not semantic, but metaphysical.    (03)



>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Waclaw Kusnierczyk
>Sent: 10 June 2007 22:11
>To: [ontolog-forum]
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but both
>needed
>
>Chris Partridge wrote:
>> vQ,
>>
>>> I think the question of whether an avalanche is a continuant or an
>>> occurrent is ill-posed,
>>
>> I think there is some circularity here.
>>
>> I am assuming (a thought experiment) where one is present at something
>that
>> people tend to call avalanches, and asking what exists.
>>
>> If one accepts the continuant/occurrent distinction then one could
>> reasonably ask (as I did Barry) whether he thought a continuant or an
>> occurrent or both existed.
>>
>> I am not presupposing, as you seem to suggest, a notion of what an
>avalanche
>> is. That is something for you and/or Barry to supply.
>
>I did not suggest what you were presupposing.  I see there was a typo:
>"One you accept" should be replaced by "Once you accept".  I am making a
>thought experiment as well -- *suppose* there are continuants and
>occurents as entities of two jepd categories.  I do not say there are.
>
>>
>> I am happy if you want to take both your definitions below (call them
>> avalanche#1 and avalanche#2 if you wish). This means that for you, these
>two
>> things exist.
>
>I recall definitions found in publicly available dictionaries.  What I
>say is:  once you accept the distinction between continuants and
>occurents, some of these definitions of avalanche speak of continuants,
>some of occurrents.  So the question 'is an avalanche an occurrent or a
>continuant' is ill-posed, since one does not know what you are asking
>about -- the mass of snow or its falling.  Once you do *not* accept the
>distinction, the question is even more ill-posed.
>
>> I am suspicious of your discussion of meanings  which are about the
>> relation of terms to the world  it is rather that exists in the world
>that
>> I am interested in.
>
>Of course.  So let's go out there, you'll point at what you want to ask
>about and we may discuss.  But once you ask a question using terms which
>are not unambiguous, answers you get to your questions on what there
>exists depend on how thee terms are understood.
>
>
>vQ
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 09/06/2007
>10:46
>    (04)

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 09/06/2007
10:46    (05)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (06)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>