Re: Axiomatic ontology
Avril,
You quote me, so I feel I need to reply.
On Jan 28, 2008 6:11 AM, Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> RF
> > 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".)
>
> JS
> > We have such a name:
> >
> > It is "the universe".
>
> The point was of course not the tag, but that we have a common understanding
> of what we mean by "the universe": it is simply all there is in any
> thinkable way. So, that let the tag be Universe then.
It is exactly our understanding of what we mean by "the universe"
which differs. What I like about "tags" is that they provide the means
to express that, not that they allow different labels for the same
idea. Assert that they all express the same idea and you miss my
point.
Simply put, that there will always be different ways of looking at the
same thing.
The problem seems to be right down there in what we "mean" by "truth".
No new label will get beneath it. It seems that every (complete?)
conception, by the very nature of conception, contains its own
contradiction.
Russell's example was the set of all sets which don't contain themselves.
What about Russell's set? Can it be thought? If so, is it contained in
your label.
I'm not sure if it is worth my time to continue to argue this though.
I feel you are bent on elaborating an axiomatic ontology no matter
what.
Descartes had got to God by now. Perhaps I should just leave you to it.
-Rob