Dear Fil
the point i was trying to make was this: if one doesn't know the 'language', one
cannot play the game. one becomes powerless, one is at a disadvantage. if one wants to
regain position, one must learn to know the 'language'. and it is through this
process, this language becomes more and more powerful and unchallengeable.
please substitute 'language' with 'doctrine'.
to me, it is ok jan defines ontology the way that makes sense to her. i may have taken
your post wrongly, but i felt that you have silented her rather than encouraged her to
talk, to communicate, to construct meanings together.
we of course need to know what is written in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and
my Lexikon and all the resources Ken provides. but this is just the beginning not an
end. it is upon what have been constructed before, we construct meanings for our own
needs at our own time. to assign particular meanings to a label, as you suggested,
requires, in my opinoin, a collective negotiation. not a heavy handed imposition of
doctrines.
better?
rosan
"Filippo A. Salustri" wrote:
> 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
>
|