Axiomatic ontology
RF
> 1) We should focus on ways to let people establish their own naming
> conventions for specific purposes (already a popular practice, and
> growing with the use and elaboration of "tags".)
JS
> We have such a name:
>
> It is "the universe".
The point was of course not the tag, but that we have a common understanding
of what we mean by "the universe": it is simply all there is in any
thinkable way. So, that let the tag be Universe then.
We have two theories:
1) naive idealism: only the thinker exists. Thinker=Universe
2) naive realism: also other people and the world outside my mind exists.
The thinker is a proper part of Universe.
Whether to choose 1 or 2 can be seen as a matter of pure economicality.
Axiomatic ontology helps to solve which one is the best.
If we are realists, we can talk about other people normally.
If we are idealists, we assume that our mind = Universe. Now, in our minds,
there are dreams, or some sorts of mental pictures of other people, streets,
and forums. There is also the thinker himself, his body, and brains. So,
actually his brains and his body are inside his mind. Now, if his mind is
inside his brains, a transfinite regress occurs. If his mind is not inside
his brains, then he has to separate two concepts: a) the mind that is the
same as Universe, and b) the mind that is inside his brains.
Already at first steps, idealism causes unnecessary difficulties with plain
common sense -we can't make a good case out of bad materials. The conclusion
is that naive realism is a more economical way to do analysis than naive
idealism.
This is just a raw examople, but it is not hard to see the overwhelming
success of axiomatic ontology. There were only two axioms: 1) simpler is
better, and 2) Universe stands for all that exists.
Avril