Ontology: Short Version
It is easier for me to say what I don't believe in than what I do, but I will try.
When I think about existence, I think about it using different tools at different levels. From the sub-particle region on up to the atom I look to particle and quantum physics. From there on up to the macrocosm I look to physics, chemistry, biology, etc. When I think about the mind, I think in terms of neuroscience, but also in terms of evolution and memetics. When I think about thoughts, I think in terms of Hume's impressions and ideas, but also in terms, again, of neuroscience, and these form, for me, the foundation of psychology. When I think about the transmutation of thoughts, I think about linguistics and systems of representation, evolution, experience, etc. As you go up to societies, ethics, morality, and history, I use system theory, evolution, and linquistics first but then in many cases revert to all the other disciplines I have mentioned. (As an aside, this means I do not believe morality has any meaning below, or above, the level of human interaction. To speak of the morality of the bacterium is to speak jibberish.)
I think of mathematics, the ultimate descriptive system, when I ponder the Universe, though we may never evolve the language to properly represent it.
Basically, I'm an Anthropic principle kind of guy. When the answer's always "Because", you learn to stop asking "Why?" The world exists as it does because it exists as it does, and it is up to us to build systems of representation that will filter and distill as much needed knowledge out of the massive amounts of data as we can to survive.
Philosophers like Heidegger end up boring me, in framing ideas like "disclosure of being in which the being of beings is unconcealed." This effort at an intellectual walking of the dog gave us Clinton's "the meaning of is." It is completely worthless as explanation and description, and does more harm than good by convincing arrogant initiates that they need to tear down our illusions and rebuild the temple. (so I'm not a phenomenologist, existentialist, deconstructionist, etc.)
Ultimately my knowledge is not expert in any of these subjects (not enough time). Yet I find it useful to be moderately fluent in the languages of each area, for the sets of knowledge that you find there are aggregated around what I am looking for.
But I look forward to reading Truepeer's site material.
When I think about existence, I think about it using different tools at different levels. From the sub-particle region on up to the atom I look to particle and quantum physics. From there on up to the macrocosm I look to physics, chemistry, biology, etc. When I think about the mind, I think in terms of neuroscience, but also in terms of evolution and memetics. When I think about thoughts, I think in terms of Hume's impressions and ideas, but also in terms, again, of neuroscience, and these form, for me, the foundation of psychology. When I think about the transmutation of thoughts, I think about linguistics and systems of representation, evolution, experience, etc. As you go up to societies, ethics, morality, and history, I use system theory, evolution, and linquistics first but then in many cases revert to all the other disciplines I have mentioned. (As an aside, this means I do not believe morality has any meaning below, or above, the level of human interaction. To speak of the morality of the bacterium is to speak jibberish.)
I think of mathematics, the ultimate descriptive system, when I ponder the Universe, though we may never evolve the language to properly represent it.
Basically, I'm an Anthropic principle kind of guy. When the answer's always "Because", you learn to stop asking "Why?" The world exists as it does because it exists as it does, and it is up to us to build systems of representation that will filter and distill as much needed knowledge out of the massive amounts of data as we can to survive.
Philosophers like Heidegger end up boring me, in framing ideas like "disclosure of being in which the being of beings is unconcealed." This effort at an intellectual walking of the dog gave us Clinton's "the meaning of is." It is completely worthless as explanation and description, and does more harm than good by convincing arrogant initiates that they need to tear down our illusions and rebuild the temple. (so I'm not a phenomenologist, existentialist, deconstructionist, etc.)
Ultimately my knowledge is not expert in any of these subjects (not enough time). Yet I find it useful to be moderately fluent in the languages of each area, for the sets of knowledge that you find there are aggregated around what I am looking for.
But I look forward to reading Truepeer's site material.
posted by John Aristides at 2:49 PM
1 Comments:
I've always been an English Enlightenment person myself (hence, strongly disagree with Rousseau). I neither believe in the the immolation nor in the perfection of man.
But feel free to post in the comment section anything you think will heighten discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home