ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 14:38:31 +0200
Message-id: <1194611911.473454c73124f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,     (01)

why do you then think that ontology is called the 
"first philosophy"?    (02)

Do you think Aristotle was trying to do something else in 
Metaphysics, than create the ideal abstract ontology IAO 
that is the foundation for everything else?    (03)

That IAO does not exist today, does not indicate that it 
could not exist. Again, I must remind of one great leap
in ontology: D.M.Armstrong's two-volume Universals and 
Scientific Realism. I think that this is a must for 
every member of this mailing list. After reading the 
first part that concerns paradoxes of nominalism, one 
can hardly be a nominalist anymore. Again, one branch
of IAO solved. And all the branches can be solved.    (04)

But we may as well leave this not-too debate. Some people 
believe that IAO is possible, some do not.     (05)

Avril    (06)


-- 
Always forward towards the supreme maxim of scientific philosophizing    (07)


Lainaus "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>:    (08)

> Azamat,
> 
> You are taking the a priori view that there exists an ideal
> abstract ontology that is somehow the foundation for everything.
> 
> That view is close to Plato's view of the forms, but it is very
> different from Aristotle's empirical view.
> 
>  > Ontology is the core of philosophy (Logics, Epistemology,
>  > Semantics, etc.) and the foundation of all sciences, physical,
>  > psychological, social, and engineering, thus it sets the most
>  > basic assumptions for the world knowledge, to be truly
>  > represented by the advanced knowledge and semantic technology.
> 
> Since there is no generally agreed ontology, I can accept that
> statement as equivalent to "the empty set is a subset of everything".
> 
>  > Other views only deprecate its high status of Science of
>  > sciences.
> 
> I am willing to say that a good ontology would be valuable,
> but I certainly deprecate 99% of what people say about ontology
> as being pure baloney.
> 
> John
> 
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>  
> 
>     (09)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (010)

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