On 6/19/2019 5:41 PM, Pierz wrote:
Of course, a purely relational ontology necessarily involves an infinite regress of relationships, but it seems to me that we must choose our poison here - the magic of intrinsic properties, or the infinite regress of only relational ones.I am not sure that a relational ontology must suffer from infinite regress, it can instead be self-referential. The ontology of "strange loops", as proposed by Hofstadter.Gotta read Hofstadter some day. I have thought of the possibility of circular set of relationships, but then the circular system itself would be a brute fact. Infinite regress is not necessarily something "suffered", unless what we are hoping for is some intrinsic property, some solid ground somewhere.
But if you stop worrying about what exists (where "exists" is theory dependent anyway) and think or relationships not a things but as explanations, then you can have a /virtuous/ circle of explanation, i.e. one that encompasses everything. To explain/understand something you start from something you already understand and work your way around. Empirically, that's pretty much how we learn things...you always have to start from things you understand.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9476747f-c886-0915-1e41-868d610b5261%40verizon.net.
