From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Mar 19 2005 - 07:53:19 GMT
Hi, Scott --
You say:
> I'm not sure what you think counts as an ontology. I think my answer is:
> contradictory identity (not essence, not existence, not essence and
> existence, not neither essence nor existence).
According to Webster's Collegiate, "ontology" is "1: a branch of metaphysics
concerned with the nature and relations of being; 2: a particular theory
about the nature of being or the kinds of existents." Dagobert Runes
relates the term to "the First Philosophy of Aristotle, the science of the
essence of things." He also says that it was introduced into philosophy by
your friend, Wolff; so I would expect you to have more than a passing
acquaintance with the word. The answer you're giving me appears to be a
logical aphorism for contrarity -- unification as opposed to either/or.
I use ontology as the "how" of creation. It is a hypothetical explanation
offered for the creative process -- how existence and its differentiated
constituents arise from an undifferentiated source. (You might want to
review the section titled "Creation" on my website; it's a work in progress,
so there may be some additions since you last visited it.)
> How can you get a general teleology for creation? Doesn't this lead to a
> regress to the unanswerable: why anything rather than nothing? If you
insist
> on some general answer, mine would be creation for creation's sake. A
> rationale for specific cases will depend on the specifics.
Obviously, any explanation of creation will be hypothetical. I state in my
thesis that man cannot have access to absolute truth and be a free agent.
You may see this as a "regression to the unanswerable"; but if philosophy
were not a speculative subject, why would there be so many opinions about
it?
Nothing personal, Scott, but "creation for creation's sake" is a copout --
much like Quality for Quality's sake. A philosopher should be expected to
articulate a plausible rationale for his thesis, and most do so. The
"teleology" I refer to is the cosmic meaning or purpose (for man) that
should be implicit in any ontological theory. I've tried to abide by
Occam's razor, positing as few specifics as possible.
I've promised Platt that, unless there's an objection, I intend to expound
my Creation hypothesis in this forum after everyone has had an opportunity
to comment on Thor's Objectivism essay.
It may be difficult to believe, but my participation in the MD is really
aimed at reaching a synthesis of the MoQ with Essentialism. So far it's
been an uphill battle against the nihilists. You and Platt would seem to be
among the last bastion of "primacy believers", and I'm no longer so sure of
Platt.
I appreciate your fairness and welcome your comments, as always, Scott.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 19 2005 - 07:59:14 GMT