SUO: Re: Colorless Green Events Process Furiously
It is plain to me that you have discovered the truth, the meaning of life, and
the purpose of the universe. It is sad to realize that now that you have
accomplished this great discovery and fullfilled your cosmological purpose, you
will stop posting on this list.
Sorry but I cannot see what to "tell what sorts of things there are in the
world by interrogating under sufficient torture the categories of linguistics"
could mean or under any sensical reading whose methodlogical maxim this could
reflect. OTOH, that some people may have trust in natural language may be, but
where in the first place did you get the idea that ontology was a linguistic
endeavour?
Pierre
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> JA = Jon Awbrey
> PG = Pierre Grenon
>
> PG: I still don't see
> your point but
> nevermind I
> have another
> question.
>
> JA: You must have noticed the tendency here and elsewhere to try
> and wring ontologies whole cloth from linguistic analysis?
> That's all that I meant by that. There was a time, long
> time passing, when this was rather soundly drubbed as
> "syntactic reification", that is, the quest to find
> subjects and predicates in nature because they are
> found in language, unessentially more generally,
> to project our conceptual categories onto the
> world with no critique of the resulting fit.
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think that this may be the very
> answer that I've been looking for lately, namely, the principal feature
> that distinguishes "scientific and technical ontologies" (SATO's) from
> "popular and naive ontologies" (PANO's).
>
> The notion that we can tell what sorts of things there are in the world
> by interrogating under sufficient torture the categories of linguistics
> is the very thing that we used to ridicule the Greeks for -- it seems
> that the recent reprisal of this turn of mind is what Freud would have
> called the "return of the repressed", or what Jung called enantiodromia.
>
> At any rate, I can now begin use this characteristic
> as a tentative criterion for telling these two broad
> types of ontologies apart.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179