Re: Axiomatic ontology. Was: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Azamat,
I have an extremely high respect for Descartes's achievements in
mathematics. Among them, the invention of Cartesian coordinates
and analytic geometry revolutionized physics.
Newton, by the way, did the calculations and proved his theorems by
using Cartesian coordinates. But in his famous book, he translated
everything to Euclidean-style proofs. He did so because many people
at that time did not trust analytic geometry, but they did trust a
demonstration in Euclidean form.
> It is a blasphemy to disrespect so badly the spiritual fathers,
> particularly, the Father of Modern Philosophy and Mathematics.
First of all, there is an infinite distance between the mind of God
and the mind of a mortal. It is blasphemy to blur that distinction
by applying the word 'blasphemy' to any mortal, no matter how great.
Second, despite Descartes's greatness in mathematics, he made
several horrible blunders in his philosophy, which have plagued
the so-called "modern" philosophy up to the 20th century. Peirce
and Whitehead saw through those blunders, but many others did not.
1. Descartes thought that he could achieve absolute certainty on
empirical matters. That assumption, by itself, is blasphemy.
Leibniz made the point that certainty for humans is possible in
mathematics. But for any empirical subject, only an infinite
mind could attain absolute certainty.
2. He pretended to doubt matters that were impossible for him to
doubt. Perhaps my word 'fraud' is too strong, but it is, in
any case, a kind of self deception whose effects are even
worse than a deliberate deception. If Descartes were merely
fraudulent, he would have been found out very quickly, and
people would have seen through the flaws in his philosophy.
Unfortunately, many people took his ideas seriously.
3. His sharp distinction between mind and body created the
so-called mind-body problem. That problem did not exist
for Aristotle, who had a hierarchy of psyches, each of
which depended on the earlier ones: the vegetative psyche
of plants; the sensitive psyche of sedentary animals, such
as barnacles and clams; the psyche of animals with locomation,
such as worms; the psyche of animals with imagery; and the
human psyche of animals having logos (zoon logon echein).
Those three blunders completely destroyed Descartes's philosophy.
And by the way, Thomas Aquinas, a highly admired theologian,
adopted Aristotle's hierarchy. Although Aquinas used the Latin
'anima' for Aristotle's 'psyche', he did not suffer from the
delusion of a mind detached from the body. In fact, he even used
the Aristotelian hierarchy as an argument for the Christian dogma
of the resurrection of the dead at the Last Judgment. His reason
was that the human soul depends for its full faculties on the
hierarchy of all the more primitive souls of plants and animals.
And if the rational soul is detached from the rest, it has only
a shadowy existence that is not as perfect as it would be when
united with the body.
> ... advanced rationalism with its built-in conception of innate
> knowledge, some knowledge gain by sense experience, but most
> fundamental truths and principles by reason and deduction (in
> ontology, logics, mathematics, ethics).
Rationalism and innate ideas were thoroughly developed by Plato
and his followers. One of Aristotle's most important achievements
was to qualify and correct those errors. Descartes's version was
a terrible step backwards.
> ... most fundamental truths and principles by reason and deduction
> (in ontology, logics, mathematics, ethics).
>
> mathematical philosophy with its inbuilt idea of mathematicism
> (exploiting formal structure and rigorous methods in philosophical
> systems).
As I said, I have a very high regard for Descartes's mathematics.
But the good parts of those ideas you mentioned were introduced by
Plato and Aristotle. The formalization of mathematics from Euclid
to Archimedes was outstanding (and there were quite a few important
achievements by the Indian and Arabic mathematicians). The
Scholastics of the 12th to the 14th century did a very good job
of applying those ideas to philosophy while *avoiding* the three
major blunders by Descartes.
> It was Descartes who proposed to organize ontological (philosophical)
> knowledge in the form of definitions, axioms, rules and theorems,
> following Euclid's axiomatization of geometry and Aristotle's Topics.
I suggest that you look at the Scholastic writings.
> ''I think, therefore I am'', try to test it in your personal
> experience, imagining that you suddenly lost your power to cogitate
> and cerebrate, what a poor existence and wretched life it might be!
Indeed, the losses caused by Alzheimer's disease and other forms
of dementia are devastating. But Descartes's slogan is useless.
People who have lost a great deal of their faculties are still
aware of the existence of themselves and their surroundings,
even when they remember very little of their past.
John