SUO: Re: Natural language
Chris,
Interesting point:
CP> My point is just that language evolves. This evolution
> has historically starts with qualms which are then resolved.
> Surely you cannot object to this! And historically the
> looseness (technical not prejorative) of use of terms
> dealing with identity has been an area where there has
> been evolution in the past.
But what I was objecting to is that you seem to think
that a 4D ontology is somehow an improvement over what
people use in ordinary language. I certainly agree that
it is different, and I also agree for some purposes, it
is more useful than a 3D ontology. But I would certainly
not recommend a 4D ontology as a replacement for a 3D
ontology -- it is just one more ontology to throw into
the pot (or lattice or any other modularization you prefer).
And I really object to the word "qualm" because it
suggests that there is something to be corrected in the
way people use notions of identity. I certainly agree
that identity is a very context-dependent notion,
and it is very dangerous to assume any fixed notion
of identity as the foundation for ontology.
That is one of my primary objections to DOLCE: They
put far too much emphasis on identity as something that
is supposed to be fundamental to ontology. The DOLCE
solution is to relate identity to the concept type --
but that just creates even more confusion. They
end up with multiplicities of individuals in every
space-time region depending on the whim of anybody who
happens to classify what they see.
Identity is a very useful notion, but it is fundamentally
context dependent. It is something to be explicated,
not a concept that you can use to explicate anything else.
John