On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 4:15:43 AM UTC+2, 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 prefer the latter. >
I wouldn't say that the former is "magic" but I would say that the latter doesn't seem to make sense :) There can be relations between relations, or relations between structures/sets of relations, but there must also be non-relations in which all relations are ultimately grounded. Without non-relations, the whole edifice of relations seems to collapse because the relations are ultimately undefined. This is not a problem of an infinite chain of objects or of a circular chain of objects; the problem is that the objects (relations) are undefined. But I would not say that non-relations are more fundamental or real than relations or vice versa. Rather I would say that one cannot exist without the other; they are on the same ontological footing, so to speak. -- 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/6887cc2f-e12b-4c75-8b34-0e36dbb982ba%40googlegroups.com.
