Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Sartre] Expanding The Ontological Tree Of Knowledge

Expand Messages
  • Amy Wing
    Dear Joe, This may be a point where our philosophical postions differ. I believe, that philosophy always begs the question-even Sartre s philosophy.
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 14, 2004
      Dear Joe,

      This may be a point where our philosophical postions
      differ. I believe, that philosophy always begs the
      question-even Sartre's philosophy. Philosophy, in my
      opinion, is used in order to justify our own beliefs,
      values, and existence, although that doesn't mean that
      it is not valid. What I would caution here though, in
      relation to my own personal values and beliefs, is
      what it is that you are naturalizing; ie: an
      "organized-hierarchical-index". I think, at this
      place, you are begging the question of there being
      implied, in at leaste a few of these philosophies that
      you have mentioned, a hierachal ordering of things;
      therefore it is being naturalized that there just is
      one, - or -, it could be that you in fact take
      ownership of the creation of one. I do not claim to
      understand the intention of your post, and for the
      most part it is very interesting, with divisions and
      sub-divisions to break things down into a way that
      these constructs can be understood. But my two cents
      is that depending on contexts, heiracrchies shift;
      meaning that there is no natural or permentent
      hierarchy; therefore there is *no* heirachy that has
      to exist at all, from the point of view of the
      individual - so long as a heirachy is not *created*.
      With that being said, I believe that what you are
      calling heirachal is the fact the one thing is
      dependent on something else for it's own existence,
      but this does not necessarily, in my opion, equal a
      natural superiority one way or the other. I can't tell
      anyone how to think about things, but - thinking - and
      - language - are two key factors that contribute to
      the way world structures are played out. And
      heiracrhies alway start out harmless, but history
      teaches us that "leaves" that they produce are posion
      to many many people.

      I have to say though that from what I have been
      reading economics has played the main role in the
      oppression of peoples, and philosohy is just what
      justifies or unjustifies our importance within the
      economic structure; wherever our economic postion is
      in relation to others.

      Thanks,

      Amy

      --- decker150 <decker150@...> wrote: > We have
      been given the ideas (from Sartre)
      > Being-in-itself,
      > Being-for-itself, (Heidegger) Being-in-general,
      > Being-in-the-world,
      > Being-alongside-useful-things, Being-one-self,
      > Beings-potentiality,
      > Being-with-others, etc. These variations of Being
      > indicate the
      > manifold or various comportments of Being. But
      > there is also
      > sub-manifolds. What I see is an outline forming,
      > much like any
      > written composition where there is a Heading, with
      > divisions and
      > subdivisions. Being-In-General or Being-in-itself
      > might qualify as
      > the general heading, whereas Being-in-the-World and
      > Being-with-others
      > come along as divisions of the main topic. But in
      > terms of
      > organizing an explication, we may also explore
      > subdivision or
      > sub-manifold outlines, that help explore other
      > 'aspects' of the
      > meaning of Being.
      >
      > Ontology is the attempt to study and describe the
      > structure of being,
      > and from the way it appears to me, this describing
      > of the structure
      > may fall into the an organized-hierarchical-index;
      > such as
      >
      > A General Heading: Being-in-itself
      > (Being-in-General)
      >
      > Division 1.) Being-in-the-world
      > Sub-divisions (?)
      >
      > Division 2.) Being-with-others
      > Sub-divisions a,b,c...?
      > a. Being-for-others
      > b. Being-against-others
      > c. Being-intimate-with-another
      > d. Being-distant-to-others
      > e. Being-communicative-with-others
      > f. etc., etc.
      > Division 3.) Being-alongside-useful-things
      > Subvisions (?)
      >
      > Division 4.) Etc., Etc.
      >
      > This may not be the correct index, but only a trial
      > springboard model
      > for the sake of considering how the structure might
      > be outlined as a
      > knowable/organized structure.
      >
      > How are all these modes possible? In the name of
      > Existentialism, and
      > under the guiding question 'What Is The Meaning of
      > Being?' is an
      > Ontological description of these sub-manifolds
      > worthwhile? Just
      > explicating one sub-mode, such as
      > (Being-intimate-with-others) could
      > generate more leaves on the existential tree of
      > knowledge.
      >
      > The structure expressed here is given in a topical
      > format with
      > divisions and subdivisions, following the model of
      > an indexing mode,
      > in which outlines and trees are conceptually related
      > to the
      > metaphor/paradigm (the tree-of-knowledge) and it's
      > various branches
      > (tribiutaries) divisions, etc. (however one wishes
      > to describe the
      > byfurcated growth (splitting) The pattern of a
      > reductionism and an
      > expansionism. Healthy tree's continue to produce
      > new leaf.
      >
      > Joe
      >
      >

      =====
      "Beauty's where you find it" Madonna

      ______________________________________________________________________
      Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
    • decker150
      Hi Amy, thanks for you remarks. I will respond in kind to several points you made. Amy: This may be a point where our philosophical postions differ. I
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 14, 2004
        Hi Amy, thanks for you remarks. I will respond in kind to several
        points you made.

        Amy: This may be a point where our philosophical postions differ. I
        believe, that philosophy always begs the question-even Sartre's
        philosophy. Philosophy, in my opinion, is used in order to justify
        our own beliefs, values, and existence, although that doesn't mean
        that it is not valid.

        Joe: Yes, and it is Ok to differ, to explore the subject we both
        enjoy. Of course, any time a philsopher sets out to describe the
        world and the human condition, (s)he expresses an mere opinion.
        Some more valid than others, as you point out. But in my thinking,
        and I do struggle to express 'things as they actually are', even
        though the expression itself is always as I 'think' things are.
        Perception always meddles with reality. But this is not limited to
        philsophical meddlings, the whole world is being meddled with every
        day, every second. Culture is the greatest kind of meddling.

        When we express our philosophical views, it always entails
        describing them through a biased mindeye view that is uniquely mine
        or yours. And so, this is an opinion, as you clearly pointed out.
        My intent, and it is sincere, is to strive toward the best view I
        can muster up; that is, to tell it as correctly as I can, as it
        really is. But any view may be dismissed because it is just that,
        only a human view. One writer in semantic said "the map is not the
        territory". Ontology, Phenomenology, in fact any '-logy' is just
        a 'map' and maps improve over time with changes in how we interpret
        reality. Even in science, tested theories and experiments have been
        overturned many times by new discoveries. But even if you and I
        were sitting out on my back porch, looking at the sunset, describing
        what it looked like; each of us would only be expressing 'an
        opinion', no? But, the point I would offer is this: The fact that
        philosophy is opinionated does not mean that it is necessarily false
        or incorrect. The purpose of debate, polemics, the dialectic is to
        push the interpretations forward through the thesis and antithesis,
        to arrive at a better combinatory synthesis in the progress. But
        one really has to outdo the other in this kind of critical
        progress. I do not expect people to read my post in any other way
        than with a concerned critical eye. I am not merely looking for
        generous readers just to massage my ego.

        Amy: I do not claim to understand the intention of your post, and
        for the most part it is very interesting, with divisions and
        > sub-divisions to break things down into a way that these
        constructs can be understood.

        Joe: Right, very good. That is what we are striving for in our
        post, to be understood. Word and meaning are the aspects of our
        humanity, it is our attempt to explore our very real condition. Yet,
        we are not attempting to 'be a science'. Philosophy is in the
        Humanities, it is not even a Social Science, much less a Natural
        Science. Philosophy is something like poetry, but a little more
        rigid.

        Amy: But my two cents is that depending on contexts, heirarchies
        shift; meaning that there is no natural or permentent hierarchy;
        therefore there is *no* heirachy that has to exist at all, from the
        point of view of the individual - so long as a heirachy is not
        *created*. With that being said, I believe that what you are
        > calling heirarchal is the fact the one thing is dependent on
        something else for it's own existence, but this does not
        necessarily, in my opinion, equal a natural superiority one way or
        the other.

        Joe: My assumption is that the world I am in is predictable, and
        that there are conditions that remain the same and do not shift
        about nilly-willy. Part of the goal in reductionism is to sort
        things out, searching to identify differences in one thing from
        another thing, to look for patterns, and to strive to locate the
        irreducible features that seem to not lead any further. Just as
        they have done by reducing the material world down to the atom. But
        then later on, scientist discovered the subatomic compotents of the
        electron and neutron in a tiny orbit. And then came quarks, etc. I
        would imagine that Existentialism and Ontology still has something
        hidden, undiscovered. All I'm really trying to do, is organize my
        thoughts into an outline, so like Hanson and Gretle, I will not get
        lost in the forest of ideas. We humans do that, strive for some
        kind of order out of the chaos.

        Amy: And heiracrhies alway start out harmless, but history
        > teaches us that "leaves" that they produce are posion to many many
        people.

        Joe: That's true, there is such a thing as a "dangerous idea".

        Enjoy - Joe

        >
        > --- decker150 <decker150@y...> wrote: > We have
        > been given the ideas (from Sartre)
        > > Being-in-itself,
        > > Being-for-itself, (Heidegger) Being-in-general,
        > > Being-in-the-world,
        > > Being-alongside-useful-things, Being-one-self,
        > > Beings-potentiality,
        > > Being-with-others, etc. These variations of Being
        > > indicate the
        > > manifold or various comportments of Being. But
        > > there is also
        > > sub-manifolds. What I see is an outline forming,
        > > much like any
        > > written composition where there is a Heading, with
        > > divisions and
        > > subdivisions. Being-In-General or Being-in-itself
        > > might qualify as
        > > the general heading, whereas Being-in-the-World and
        > > Being-with-others
        > > come along as divisions of the main topic. But in
        > > terms of
        > > organizing an explication, we may also explore
        > > subdivision or
        > > sub-manifold outlines, that help explore other
        > > 'aspects' of the
        > > meaning of Being.
        > >
        > > Ontology is the attempt to study and describe the
        > > structure of being,
        > > and from the way it appears to me, this describing
        > > of the structure
        > > may fall into the an organized-hierarchical-index;
        > > such as
        > >
        > > A General Heading: Being-in-itself
        > > (Being-in-General)
        > >
        > > Division 1.) Being-in-the-world
        > > Sub-divisions (?)
        > >
        > > Division 2.) Being-with-others
        > > Sub-divisions a,b,c...?
        > > a. Being-for-others
        > > b. Being-against-others
        > > c. Being-intimate-with-another
        > > d. Being-distant-to-others
        > > e. Being-communicative-with-others
        > > f. etc., etc.
        > > Division 3.) Being-alongside-useful-things
        > > Subvisions (?)
        > >
        > > Division 4.) Etc., Etc.
        > >
        > > This may not be the correct index, but only a trial
        > > springboard model
        > > for the sake of considering how the structure might
        > > be outlined as a
        > > knowable/organized structure.
        > >
        > > How are all these modes possible? In the name of
        > > Existentialism, and
        > > under the guiding question 'What Is The Meaning of
        > > Being?' is an
        > > Ontological description of these sub-manifolds
        > > worthwhile? Just
        > > explicating one sub-mode, such as
        > > (Being-intimate-with-others) could
        > > generate more leaves on the existential tree of
        > > knowledge.
        > >
        > > The structure expressed here is given in a topical
        > > format with
        > > divisions and subdivisions, following the model of
        > > an indexing mode,
        > > in which outlines and trees are conceptually related
        > > to the
        > > metaphor/paradigm (the tree-of-knowledge) and it's
        > > various branches
        > > (tribiutaries) divisions, etc. (however one wishes
        > > to describe the
        > > byfurcated growth (splitting) The pattern of a
        > > reductionism and an
        > > expansionism. Healthy tree's continue to produce
        > > new leaf.
        > >
        > > Joe
        > >
        > >
        >
        > =====
        > "Beauty's where you find it" Madonna
        >
        >
        _____________________________________________________________________
        _
        > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
      • Amy
        Hi Joe, I am so glad that you took what I had to say the way I intended it. I think that the formation of the structure that you are seeing does have a
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 15, 2004
          Hi Joe,

          I am so glad that you took what I had to say the way I intended it. I
          think that the formation of the structure that you are seeing does
          have a heuristic capcity to create new dementions of exploration.

          All the best!

          Amy
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.