Defining Ontology
January 25th, 2009, search relatedRelated posts :: Defining Ontology :: Defining Ontology :: Somewhat Vexing– Ontology qua Thanatos :: Reply to Errors, Misrepresentations and Irrelevancies (6)
CPI vs AIT: Defining Ontology
gevans613 at aol.com wrote:
>jpolanik@nc.rr.com writes:
>>Definition: ‘I_2 am’ = ‘I_2 am not nothing at all’.
>>Joe: are you saying that a self-asserted ‘I_2 am not nothing at all’
>>is a true statement or a false statement?
>Jud: No, I am saying it is a bizarre, ontologically redundant
>meaningless statement … outside the accepted domain of discourse of
>ontology, which is defined as: the metaphysical study of the nature of
>*being and existence*
“ontology is the study of what there is”.
[Stanford Encycopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-…]
“Ontology is the study of what there is”. [Philosophy of Mind
Dictionary, http://philosophy.uwaterloo.ca/MindDict/…]
clearly, the first step in any ontological investigation is to take
inventory of what is. the next step is to say something about that which
is. the first step is defined by the is of isness and the second step by
the is of predication.
by defining ‘am/is’ I have given ontology a decision making criteria for
determining what there is. in taking inventory of what there is, if
there is any doubt as to whether something should be included in the
inventory, one may simply ask ‘is this a member of the empty set’ or ‘is
this nothing at all’. if the answer to either question is ‘no’ then that
[whatever] must be included in the inventory of what there is.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
