RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
Chris,
Comments below.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Ian
>
> See my comments/questions below (prefixed CJA>).
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> Sent: 01 July 2003 21:16
> To: 'Chris Angus'; Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
>
>
> Chris,
>
> Comments below.
>
> -Ian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Angus [mailto:chris.angus@btinternet.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:01 PM
> > To: Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> >
> >
> > Ian,
> >
> > I thought that that was precisely what you had said in
> > response to Matthew's
> > question. He was specifically asking what you wrap into
> > naturalism and
> > voiced the opinion that 10 naturalists in a room for a week
> > would not agree
> > about everything, a view with which you concurred in your answer.
> >
> > Is your definition of 'natural' anything that is not
> > 'supernatural'?
>
> Yes
>
> >If so
> > does it equate to 'anything that is regarded as existing not
> > outside of
> > space/time'?
>
> Yes, for me, supernatural covers everything that is assumed
> to exist outside
> of space/time.
>
> CJA> Does this include 'universals'?
It depends on how you define universals. If you regard them as Platonic
forms, then yes they would be included among the supernatural. If you
regard them as being wholly instantiated in the physical world in some way,
then no they would not be among the supernatural.
>
> > If so, what scope do you put on 'existing'?
>
> I don't know what this question means.
>
> CJA> It was a difficult question to phrase because I am not
> sure what you
> mean by 'existing', so let me just ask "What do you mean by
> 'existing'?".
I don't think I can define what I mean by "existing". If there is a set of
semantic primitives, then "exists" is surely one of them.
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Niles [mailto:iniles@teknowledge.com]
> > Sent: 01 July 2003 20:19
> > To: 'Chris Angus'; Ian Niles; 'West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE'
> > Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>