Re: SUO: Re: One Stone Fits All
Ted,
There are many words that are used for many different purposes.
Lexicographers make no value judgments about anybody's choice of
words. They just catalog them, analyze them, and write definitions
for them.
Ontologists have a lot in common with lexicographers in cataloging
and defining concepts that people have chosen to use. They must be
prepared to define (or to provide a methodology for defining) any
concepts that anyone has found useful for describing anything that
exists or may exist.
However, anyone who is developing a methodology for doing ontology
must choose some suitable theoretical foundation and accompanying
terminology for the purpose of working within that methodology.
JFS>Good question. In any case, I would throw the words "analytic" and
>>"synthetic" into the same dustbin as "universals" and "particulars".
>
TD> What about "species" and "individuals"? Into the dustbin?
The terms that I was deprecating are ones that I believe are
overburdened with too many confused and confusing issues to
be useful in a methodology for doing ontology. Among them
are the words "universals", "particulars", "analytic", and
"synthetic". I don't believe that we should include those
terms in a glossary of recommended words for use in the
SUO ontology project.
The words "species" and "individual" are terms that are used in
biology. They are important to that subject, and any ontology
of biological terms should be able to define them.
In fact, I would even be happy to include the words "universals"
and "particulars" in an ontology for talking about the history
of philosophy. I would not, however, use those words in the
definitions or in the methodology for writing definitions.
John Sowa