RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
I didn't say that the hypothesized naturalists wouldn't agree about
what is "natural". I just assumed that they would disagree about many other
things. As I've said before, my notion of a supernatural object is anything
that is regarded as existing outside of space/time, e.g. immaterial souls,
Platonic forms, etc.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:56 AM
> To: Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Ian
>
> If you cannot agree about what constitutes 'natural' how can
> you agree on
> what is 'supernatural'. This seems to be a very shaky line
> of reasoning.
>
> Regards
> Chris Angus
>
> > > MW: It seems then that we need to identify what you wrap up into
> > > naturalism. I suspect if you put 10 naturalists in a room
> for a week
> > > they would not all agree about everything.
>
> > IN: I'm absolutely certain they wouldn't agree about
> everything, but that
> > doesn't matter. As long as they agree that there is,
> currently at least,
> no
> > good reason to posit supernatural entities, that would be
> enough, I think.
> > By supernatural entities, I mean thinks like immaterial
> Cartesian souls,
> > Platonic forms, Leibnitzian monads, Berkeleyan ideas, and
> all the rest of
> > the stuff which was assumed to exist outside of space/time
> purely on the
> > basis of a priori theorizing.
> >
>