Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Hi Avril, John,
In my own personal philosophy I think I would say the most glaring
shortcoming of Descartes "bedrock" is the assumption that something
must either be true or not true.
Descartes proof was a proof of existence. But existence is a very
problematic concept. For instance, Descartes is now dead, does he not
then still exist? Clearly he doesn't exist in the way he once did, he
doesn't think any more. But do his thoughts not exist? We are thinking
about him, does that mean he exists?
Even basing existence in thought (or doubt) it is difficult to say
unequivocally that Descartes either exists or does not exist.
And what is true of truth, is true of reason.
A basis in reason, doubting all dogma, was Descartes greatest
philosophical contribution, and clearly a great advance over what went
before for many purposes. But we know now reason itself to be flawed.
So even Descartes greatest contribution is not without its
limitations.
BTW since this is ostensibly a thread about separating practice from
theory, let me add that I think ignoring theory is not only
unpleasant, and usually fatal, it is also unnecessary in this case.
First in the form of the enormously popular "tags", and now I learn by
extension to user generated hierarchies
(http://drupal.org/project/machine_tags), it seems that the direction
the world of practice is moving is also towards, subjective, user
generated ontologies. Not under any theoretical obligation, but
because those are what are proving useful. I think theory could inform
this natural movement, and it is a pity we are ignoring that. But it
is nice to see practice moving this way anyway, under the force of
utility, independently of theory.
-Rob
On Jan 23, 2008 4:41 AM, Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> John,
>
> > As for Decartes's method of universal doubt, I would say that it has
> > stunk to high heavens since the time he stated it. (But his math
> > is much more useful.)
>
> let's make this clear. Descartes wanted to have something that is completely
> sure, something where he could totelly rely on. He deduced that ''I think,
> and therefore I exist''. So, there must exist something, at least the
> thinker. If you disagree with this, you actually can't, because if you
> don't exist, you can't even disagree.
>
> Do you agree or not?
>
> -Avril
>