What is an Ontology?
March 25th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: Somewhat Vexing– Ontology qua Thanatos :: further lunacy stirs + :: What is an Ontology? :: Somewhat Vexing– Ontology qua Thanatos
Michael Eldred wrote:
>Joseph Polanik schrieb Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:16:43 -0500:
>>Michael Eldred wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:48:55 -0500:
>>>>Michael Eldred wrote:
>>>>JP: ontology is defined as the study of what there is; for example,
>>>>in this definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
>>>>”As a first approximation, ontology is the study of what there is.”
>>>ME: Rather, one would have to say, “As a last degeneration, ontology
>>>is the study of what there is.”
>>>ME: These guys at Stanford should limit themselves to eating cookies.
>>JP: it’s not just those guys at Stanford. here’s a definition from the
>>online Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names:
>>Ontology - Branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the
>>most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist.
>ME: Bake more cookies — quick, and stuff their mouths full with them.
you are going to have to bake your own cookies.
>>do you have any references to any philosopher other than Heidegger who
>>attempted to make ontology a question of who there is instead of what
>>there is?
>ME: I’ve already named several names. Further names include Martin
>Buber, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Ferdinand Ebner, Eberhard Grisebach,
>Karl Heim, Gabriel Marcel, Friedrich Gogarten, Helmut Plessner, Adolf
>Reinach, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Wilhelm Schapp, Alfred Schütz, Ludwig
>Binswanger, Hermann Levin Goldschmidt. Cf. the table of contents of
>Michael Theunissen’s “Der Andere: Studien zur Sozialontologie der
>Gegenwart” de Gruyter, Berlin 1977
>>>ME: The term ‘ontology’ goes back to R. Goeckel (Goclenius) around
>>>1600 who, in his ‘Lexicon philosophicum’, introduces _epistaemae
>>>ontologikae_ as term for one of the three Aristotelean _epistaemai
>>>theooretikai_. Ontology thus names Aristotle’s prima philosophia as
>>>the inquiry into _to on haei on_ which phrase can be variously
>>>rendered in English as “beings insofar as they are beings” or “
>>>”beings as such” or “beings qua beings” or “beings as beings” or
>>>”beings in their being”. Unfortunately, today we have become too dumb
>>>to understand the import of such a well-thought-out formulation which
>>>is, in any case, the most open definition of ontology.
>>JP: so, what is it about “the most open definition of ontology” that
>>limits an ontology to those beings that have a who-ness about them?
>ME: Nobody here’s suggesting that ontology be limited “to those beings
>that have a who-ness about them”.
what about all those names you just mentioned as examples of a
“philosopher other than Heidegger who attempted to make ontology a
question of who there is instead of what there is”? I sense a
contradiction here.
and why are you still objecting to the definition of ontology as the
study 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
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
