Rosan et al,
I can't read German. But I checked 5 online 'dictionaries of philosophy'
hosted by various universities etc. Every definition of ontology that I
found was essentially the same: the study of either "what is" or "being".
To me, these are pretty much equivalent.
Meanings may be created by us, but the only way we can communicate
meaningfully is to agree to what labels we assign to what concepts.
(Is there anyone willing to translate Rosan's german definition for me?
Just so's the engineer knows what y'all be talkin' about? :-)
Cheers.
Fil
Rosan Chow wrote:
> hi all
>
> my Lexikon der philosophischen Begriffe says this
>
> Ontologie (vom griech.on, seiend', und logos, Lehre)
> im wietesten Sinne die Lehre vom Sein bzw. Seiendem als solchen. Der
> Name "O" taucht
> zwar erst im 17 Jh. auf, doch der Sache nach findet man ontologische Überlegungen
> seit Anbeginn der Philosophiegeschichte. Schon Parmenides spricht von
> dem einen,
> ewigen und unveränderlichen Sein und stellt damit das Sein in den
> Mittelpunkt des
> philosophischen Interesses. ....
>
> Epistemologie (griech. Wissenschaftslehre) - Erkenntnistheorie
>
> i am sure you can find a French version or in other 'language' , and the
> bums on the
> streets will find theirs.
> meanings are not given, but created by us.
>
> best. rosan
>
>
>
> Filippo Salustri wrote:
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>FYI, from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
>>
>>ontology:
>>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
>>
>>epistemology:
>>the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially
>>with reference to its limits and validity
>>
>>Cheers.
>>Fil
>>
>>Jan Coker wrote:
>>
>>> I would think ontology comes closer to belief. So one ontology is the
>>>belief that what is is an objective reality.
>>> Jan
>>>
>>> Jan Coker
>>> C3-10 Underdale
>>> University of South Australia
>>> +61 8 8302 6919
>>> fax +61 8 8302 6239
>>> There is no way to Peace, Peace is the Way Gandhi
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Filippo A. Salustri [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 6:23 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Ontology (was Design Methodologies)
>>>
>>> Jean et al,
>>>
>>> I've always worked with the following short (tho possibly naive)
>>>definitions:
>>>
>>> Epistemology: the study of what we know (and how we know it)
>>> ontology: the study of what is (as opposed to what we know of what is)
>>>
>>> Ontology, near as I can figure, assumes an objective reality of some
>>>sort;
>>> something that exists without us to know about it. Eg: sun would exist
>>> even if no one knew about it.
>>>
>>> So, if there's an ontology of design, it means that design can exist
>>> without anyone knowing that it is design. I'm not sure that's possible.
>>> (Remember that I distinguish between the meaning of 'design' and the
>>>label
>>> 'design'.)
>>>
>>> Dunno if that helps, tho.
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>> Fil
>>>
>>> Jean Schneider wrote:
>>> > Hello all,
>>> >
>>> > Some comments triggered by Rosan Chow's post :
>>> > "if we look at the system (or structure) of inquiry in the social
>>> > sciences, there
>>> > are epistemology, theoretical perspectives, methodologies and
>>> > tools/techniques.
>>> > in Design Methdology, there seems to be missing the first two domains.
>>> > so i am
>>> > excited that john's design methodology is connected with evolutionary
>>> > systems
>>> > thinking. having said that, i feel that a philosophy of design needs to
>>> > go
>>> > beyond epistemology.
>>> >
>>> > as many of you have taught me, designing is making or making real. in
>>> > other
>>> > words designing, as Tony Fry has said, is in the domain of ontology.
>>> > that means,
>>> > a philosophy of design is a philosophy of being. and to me, that is a
>>> > philosophy
>>> > of morals."
>>> >
>>> > I hope that I will not sound too strict, but...
>>> > In my understanding, epistemology is the branch of philosophy that
>>>deals
>>> > with "science" in the rather narrow sense of the theories (and
>>> > associated methods) that aim at producing knowledge, and possibly
>>>truth.
>>> > In that sense, it is normal to have an epistemology of social sciences.
>>> > But I can't recall any serious claim from a designer saying that the
>>> > essential aim of design is to produce knowledge. Am I wrong ?
>>> >
>>> > I haven't read Fry's text that you are refering too, but I don't see
>>>the
>>> > necessity to call in ontology. It seems to me that we haven't even
>>> > explored much of the theoretical perspectives...
>>> > To constitute an ontology, the author (I am ready to accept many
>>> > ontologies, as long as they are consistent) should first of all declare
>>> > what constitute the reality. Is it things ? images ? use ? categories ?
>>> > technique ? economy ? representations ? etc.
>>> > The reason why I would be very sceptical about an "ontology of design"
>>> > (design as an activity ? or am I misinterpreting your post? and even
>>> > though : mental ? social ? praxis ? poietic ?...) is that you would
>>> > first have to declare how the "beings" are constituted. Whether it is
>>> > the result (but then : is the "object_ivity" of an artifact equivalent
>>> > to the "object_ivity" of an image ? etc...) or the process (and then :
>>> > isn't it then an ontology of language ? and how do the concepts then
>>> > frame the world ?) or...
>>> >
>>> > I think that we have already a lot to do with the last two domains,
>>> > which of course are partly informed about the existence(or rather : the
>>> > possibility of(the longing for ?) the existence) of the first two. But
>>> > if many of us might have a "philosophy of design", I would say that
>>>they
>>> > are philosophies as you say "s/he has a nice/bad philosophy of life".
>>> > Nothing that would be so serious.
>>> >
>>> > I am not even sure that there is a philosophy of architecture (the
>>>field
>>> > that I consider closest to ours, with the difference that it has enough
>>> > history to offer more insights), even though there are quite a few
>>> > theories of architecture (which are often very well informed by
>>> > philosophy).
>>> >
>>> > And I don't really grasp the connection between philosophy of design >
>>> > of being > of morals. But this could well be a problem of cultural
>>> > difference.
>>> >
>>> > After all, philosophy is the job of philosophers...
>>> >
>>> > Regards to all,
>>> >
>>> > Jean
>>> > Jean Schneider
>>>
>>> --
>>> Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>>> Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>>> Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
>>> 350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
>>> Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
>>> M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>>
>>--
>>Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>>Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>>Ryerson University
>>350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
>>Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>>Fax: 416/979-5265
>>Email: [log in to unmask]
>>http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|