Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Avril,
I have no idea what you mean by a "Perfect Philosophical Ontology".
> But I think that perfect philosophical ontology PPO has a
> remarkable applicability. It will fill the space that is filled
> currently by religion, similarly as modern religions filled,
> or conquered the space from the older religions.
To start with the last point first, I also have no idea what you
mean by "modern religions" or "older religions". Taoism, for
example, is one of the older religions, but I believe that the
words of Lao Tse still ring much truer than most of what you
might hear in any of the churches, synagogues, or mosques today.
Next to Peirce, one of my favorite philosophers is Whitehead,
and I very strongly agree with his opinion on this topic:
Systems, scientific and philosophic, come and go. Each
method of limited understanding is at length exhausted.
In its prime each system is a triumphant success: in its
decay it is an obstructive nuisance.
Alfred North Whitehead, _Adventures of Ideas_
There are many theories of science that are rather close to the
truth about the range of topics they have studied, and there are
many theories of philosophy that are quite good as far as they go.
And we've all learned a lot from them.
But trying to say that any humanly conceived theory is absolutely
perfect and will never be replaced by a better one is ridiculous.
If anyone tried to enforce any such theory as an official standard
for all time, it would become an intolerably obstructive nuisance.
It would stink to the highest heavens.
John