|
@FateOfTwist_ | |||||
|
An ontological understanding does not just try to capture what there is (and is not), but, also all of those ways/senses in which those things *are*/can *be*, in all walks of life and all activities
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
By different ways things are I don't mean a list of propositions that are true or false, and some are true in one activity and some are not in others.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
Consider a botanist and a chef, engaging in the activities of their profession handling an apple. The botanist might evaluate the health of the tree it came from, the process(es) by which it grew on the tree, its biochemical properties, etc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
The chef might think of what can be made from it, what pairs well with it. Beyond thinking, the chef will also have a practical physical affordance to do things like peel amd core the apple, or to macerate it.
All of these are ways the apple is to each of these professionals
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
These are not all just factual but also practical. They are not contradictory but complementary, but also in a sense partially exclusive in that the apple can't be all of that at once simultaneously for you.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
The sense of ontology which tries to be as broad and all encompassing as possible should seek to capture all of that, and more.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
Science can easily block you from doing this, if your conception of ontology is purely scientific.
> Science can talk about almost anything, but it can only talk about them in a very narrow set of ways
mobile.twitter.com/FateOfTwist_/s…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
19. stu |
|
The person to read for this is Heidegger, and that's where I got much of this from
|
||
|
|
||