ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Chris Partridge" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:34:20 -0000
Message-id: <003a01c97fa1$a5c8eb00$f15ac100$@net>
A colleague reminded me of this resource which discusses the links between
ontology and logic.
I notes several senses for each term. Some people may find it interesting.    (01)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/    (02)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Partridge [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 25 January 2009 17:29
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
> 
> John,
> 
> I suspect we are not that far apart. However ...
> 
> > CP> It does seem to me that if there is relationship, then it is
> >  > something to do with Husserl and Russell's notion that logic
> >  > can be a tool to describe ontologies.
> >
> > Excuse me.  That was Aristotle's position:  logic is the
> > _organon_ (tool) for doing philosophy, including ontology,
> > the first philosophy.
> 
> I think my (Russell/Husserl) point is different from your (Aristotle)
> point.
> 
> JS> logic is the _organon_ (tool) for doing philosophy
> What exactly is 'doing' here? Is it that when you do philosophy, you
> are doing logic? If so, then Aristotle did not practice what he
> preached as there is quite a lot of his work that is not plain
> syllogisms. Similarly many, even most, modern philosophers are not
> 'doing' philosophy in this sense.
> 
> It may be helpful here if you define what sense of logic you are using
> here.
> I am using the pragmatic definition that it is what logicians do (or
> claim to do).
> 
> CP>logic can be a tool to describe ontologies.
> However, in my view (and a lot of the logicians I talk to), one needs
> to understand something to a reasonable extent before one formalises it
> in logic. If you do not understand something, then it is difficult to
> see how you can successfully formalise it. So there is quite a lot of
> prior 'doing' of ontology before one starts logically formalising. That
> is not to say that one's understanding cannot deepen when one makes the
> formalisation.
> 
> Regards,
> Chris
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> > Sent: 25 January 2009 16:48
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> > standards
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > CP> However, it seems to me that in the late 20th century this
> >  > tradition was abandoned. That logicians (like mathematicians)
> >  > wanted to develop systems with little or no ontological
> commitment.
> >
> > First of all, logic is a prerequisite for ontology, as Aristotle
> > said.  So any attempt to avoid ontological commitment in the logic
> > is a very traditional Aristotelian approach.
> >
> > The application of logic to mathematics is also very traditional.
> > Euclid was inspired by Aristotle to systematize the mathematics
> > of his day, and much of his terminology was adopted from Aristotle.
> > Since the syllogisms didn't support full FOL, Euclid couldn't use
> > them to formalize the reasoning.  But there is a direct line of
> > influence from Aristotle to Euclid to Hilbert, Tarski, and Gödel.
> > (Tarski, by the way, quoted Aristotle in the famous paper that
> > introduced his model theory.)
> >
> > But as I have written in many email notes and publications,
> > the most serious blunder was by Frege, Russell, and Carnap:
> > the deprecation of natural language as a degenerate version
> > of logic.  That is the source of the "grave errors" (schwere
> > Irrtümer) that Wittgenstein addressed in his later philosophy.
> >
> > The most brilliant work in ontology during the 20th century
> > was written by Peirce, Whitehead, and the later Wittgenstein.
> > As logicians, they were just as brilliant as Frege, Russell,
> > and Carnap, but they rejected their blunders.
> >
> > CP> So, if I look through the philosophy -- ontology textbooks on
> >  > my bookcase, for example, Lowe's 'The Possibility of Metaphysics:
> >  > Substance, Identity and Time', I find only a brief mention of
> >  > logic, typically where it is distinguished from metaphysics.
> >
> > The 20th century is an aberration caused by the split between the
> > analytic philosophers and the so-called continental philosophers.
> > (And I blame that split on the schwere Irrtümer of Frege, Russell,
> > and Carnap.)  But note the work on ontology in Husserl's
> > _Logical Investigations_,  Carnap's _Logische Aufbau_, and
> > Nelson Goodman's _Structure of Appearance._
> >
> > CP> So it seems to me that as a historical comment my original
> >  > point stands -- where 'tradition' is understood as current
> >  > mainstream, rather than historical mainstream.
> >
> > There is a direct continuity between what people are currently
> > doing and the historical developments from Aristotle to Peirce,
> > Husserl, Whitehead, Wittgenstein, and modern AI.  See, for example,
> > the following paper:
> >
> >     http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/csp21st.pdf
> >     Peirce's Contributions to the 21st Century
> >
> > If you don't believe me, please look at the very extensive
> > analysis by the Danish philosopher Frederick Stjernfelt
> > in his very large book, _Diagrammatology_.  In that book,
> > Stjernfelt notes the very strong affinities between Peirce
> > and Husserl.  Both of them were much closer to one another
> > than either was to Frege or Russell.
> >
> > CP> It does seem to me that if there is relationship, then it is
> >  > something to do with Husserl and Russell's notion that logic
> >  > can be a tool to describe ontologies.
> >
> > Excuse me.  That was Aristotle's position:  logic is the
> > _organon_ (tool) for doing philosophy, including ontology,
> > the first philosophy.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> > To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >    (03)


_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

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