Re: Axiomatic ontology. Was: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
On Jan 27, 2008 3:25 AM, Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> ...First we got to agree that we have a
> common name for the totality of all things that exists: Substance. Then we
> can start to think whether Substance is the thinker, or if also other thigs
> exist.
>
> Now, does somebody disagree with this naming convention at this point?
Talk about subjective perception!
Umm, I don't know if it was clear, but I disagree with not only this,
but all fixed naming conventions, and think either:
1) We should focus on ways to let people establish their own naming
conventions for specific purposes (already a popular practice, and
growing with the use and elaboration of "tags".)
2) Look at defining "meaning" more fundamentally in terms of
relationships between words.
If on the other hand you decide you really would rather ignore the
lessons of 20th century philosophy, by all means go ahead and do that.
-Rob