Hi Ham, I'm sorry you find that view "cynical". I don't feel cynical, I feel pragmatic .... I'd like to defend my position .... inserted below.
On 10/18/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Ian -- > > > You said to David: > > Ontology as the creative linguistic act - defining what you will > > "deem" to exist - as the basis for your epistemology (or poetry) > > going forward .... I'm fine with that. > > > Ontology as existence - is where I jump off - when metaphysicians > > start talking as if this ontology is about (a) what actually exists in > > some absolute reality, and (b) whether that is provable one way or > > another, empirically or logically. > > Your skepticism--or should I say agnosticism?--about ontology represents a > view here that I find incredulous. [IG] That's not ontology agnositic Ham, its "aontic", I have no doubt (other than normal contingency of knowledge) about the view I hold. I'm not sitting on the fence .... anyway let's clarify what it is ... > > You can accept an ontology as a "creative linguistic act" but not as a > theory of "what actually exists". What do you suppose is the philosopher's > objective in postulating an ontology? Do you think it's simply to dream up > a Wonderland fantasy for our entertainment or amusement? Is that what you > believe was Pirsig's intention in developing the MoQ? [IG] No Ham. I fully accept it as a "theory" of what exists - I said "deemed to exist", but not an absolute irrefutable statement about what "does actually exist". Clearly more insightful, thoughful philosophers will "dream up" better (deemed / dreamed) ontologies. I inhabit a pragmatic world, I don't accuse anyone of fanatsies designed for amusement ... theories of existence are a serious business - nations go to war over them. But let's not get all sniffy at "dreams" that inspire - those dreams that reality is made of. [IG] And I'm not saying an actual ontology doesn't exist either ... I'm just saying that level of existence has little to do with those onotologies we can experience and talk about. > > Admittedly, ontologists are dealing with concepts that are unprovable, > "empirically or logically". But that's not the point. Ontology is a > legitimate theory about the nature and relations of being or existents. It > is not "poetry" or fictional prose; in fact, it is every bit as serious as > Newton's or Einstein's theories. [IG] Agreed, legitimate theory. But, I wouldn't be so quick to knock poetry as "fiction" against scientific theory or philosophical prose as somehow "reality" .... both are very serious issues, both have an enormous metaphorical lingusitic element relating experience to perceived / deemed / dreamed reality - some of the best scientific and philosophical writing uses the best poetry and rhetoric. Einstein would be the first to defend the poetic beauty of a good theory, probabaly more so than the empirical scientific logic (90% inpsiration, 10% perspiration I think he said ? Paraphrasing from memory "Communication is like a cat, you pinch it's tail and at the other end its mouth howls, except there is no cat" .... magic.) What makes ontology significant is that it > extends man's perspective, and arguably his wisdom, beyond empirical > knowledge. Just because an ontology (or an epistemology, for that matter) > cannot be "falsified" does not mean it is frivolous or without meaning. > [IG] Exactly. Couldn't agree more. I'm the first to say that basic scientific (falsifiable) empiricism, is not the final word in quality and value of knowledge - where have you been the last 5 years ? I have never said, and would never say ontology was not "significant" - but significance is an epistemological concept (semiotic anyway). It's enormously significant - just not the final word in what actually exists. > I am greatly troubled by the cynicism demonstrated in this forum toward the > traditional branches of philosophical inquiry, including ontology, > cosmology, epistemology, and metaphysics. There are far too many > "abstractions" being touted as fundamental principles, and too many > fundamentals being dismissed as "reifications". The more we regard > philosophy as mere aphorisms and platitudes about reality, the less value > and wisdom we will gain from it. Anyone who automatically rejects a concept > that is not substantiated by empirical experience cannot call himself a > philosopher and, in my opinion, shouldn't even be discussing it. [IG] Couldn't agree more, couldn't have put it better myself. I just don't see the cynicism. And I'd plead not-guilty to either charge above - gimme an example. I would never use "mere" about an aphorism .... and platitudes are for light relief only - and I've never called anything fundamental in my life .... "more fundamental" maybe, layers organised in a signficant order, according to a given "theory" ... but nothing is "just" a theory. Gimme examples of the charges. Ian Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
