As interesting as this discussion may be, it has drifted away from the topic
of the Ontology Summit. (01)
Please migrate this discussion to ontolog-forum. (02)
thank you,
Michael Gruninger
Co-Chair Ontology Summit 2013 (03)
On 13-03-15 6:18 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Ravi,
>
> The points you mention get into many important, but thorny issues
> of metaphysics. I believe that they deserve all the attention that
> philosophers have devoted to them over the centuries.
>
> RS
>> I reached conclusion that nature of objects - deserves study of
>> 'disposition' as it stimulates understanding of underlying nature...
> That is an important issue for philosophers to discuss.
>
> But -- and this is a very big *BUT* -- most people who need to build
> and maintain ontologies are *not* professional philosophers. They
> need reliable guidelines that they can understand. For them, words
> like 'disposition' or 'essence', which philosophers have been kicking
> around for centuries are *worse* than useless as guidelines.
>
> RS
>> I have yet to relate this concept to events and processes, thinking
>> and knowledge representations that also can use ontology constructs.
> I would encourage ontologists to read what the philosophers have written
> about these issues. But I would not recommend that they get bogged
> down in the same swamp where even professional philosophers get stuck
> (or eaten by alligators -- AKA other philosophers).
>
> For example, I have often discussed Peirce's terms, Firstness,
> Secondness, and Thirdness, which are even more confusing than
> dispositions and essences. But I have learned to replace those
> words by simple question words: What? How? Why?
>
> The answer to What? gives you Firstness. The answer to How? gives
> you Secondness. And the answer to Why? gives you Thirdness.
> The Why? question is the one that gives most ontologists the most
> trouble, but it focuses attention on the real issues.
>
> Recommendation for ontologists: Don't get hung up on big words
> like 'disposition', which even professional philosophers can't
> agree on. Instead, use simple questions that direct attention
> to answers stated in words that everybody can understand.
>
> Unfortunately, finding simplicity is not a simple task.
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
|