« December 2004 | Main | October 2005 »

September 25, 2005

a note about doing ontology

Appropriations posting

“Metaphysics,” as traditionally conceived, is a mythical—>conceptualist (pre-scientific) approach to realism. I call that metaphysicalism. It’s what Heidegger set out to deconstruct.

But there’s a sense of metaphysics that’s unavoidable: meta-physics, in the literal sense, which perhaps becomes philosophy of mathematics (as, e.g., we humans don’t yet have the mathematical capacity to describe quantum foam; see Lee Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, 2001). Worries about realism in mathematics are no metaphysicalism, since we’re in the “same” universe with other, yet-undiscovered forms of intelligent life (SETI optimist here).

Also, people aren’t doing metaphysicalism in The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics (2003), which is concerned with basic conceptuality, but with respect to (relative to) scientific realism (including neurocognitive science or biology of mind à la John Searle).

So, it turns out (historically—evolutionarily) that metaphysicalism was an unrealistic way to do ontology. Ontology is not doable relative to the history of “metaphysics”. But there’s no escaping ontological implicatures. What’s the nature of functions in biology? What are species or natural kinds? One may have an untenable view of these, but there’s no escaping ontological implicature.

Ontology is a kind of inquiry, not a particular result. One may have overt ontological commitments or not. The work of Habermas, in particular, doesn’t require ontological commitments, even as it gets real about its fundamental implicature.

September 10, 2005

a post-Habermasian aspect of linguistic existence

Appropriations posting

[penultimate paragraph deleted from a discussion group posting}

In such a narrativization, “[he]” is a figure of speech employed in a hermeneutical interest—no instrumentalization of the other (proven by this present mode of assertion?—this self-reflectivity of the narrating?)—which, [he], you, might keep in mind relative to my critical comments at your blog today! (and, so, there not be offended)—maybe appreciating (like I need to) a feature of the creative process in formulating critical stances (interpretive possibilities turned to critical use), not so much that you are really implicated, but that one can be so implicated (as shown by experiment with appearances), while I, in this very stating, express (I hope) the decenteredness of a critical developmentality. No matter whether you are implicated validly in that other commentary (at your blog), the kind of problematic displayed—the kind of dynamic so framed—happens and is worth entertaining.

“So, onward with the learning that never ends (in a hermeneutical landscape where we always already are).”

(so overwhelmingly thankful he’s still sheltered from any storms—or the inevitably giant California earthquake)