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

35702Re: a faltering attempt

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      So: the logos in greek language is the word by which inward thought is
      expressed, or the inward thought/reason, itself. ontos is a genitive
      [possessive] form of the participle, oon [i.e. with a long 'o', or
      omega vowel, whereas ontos is a short, omicron, vowel], from the verb
      eimi, to be. This gives the signification of ontology as 'the inward
      thought of being'. Ontical is an adjectival form of that participle,
      i.e. 'pertaining to being'.

      Concrete examples [insofar as we can pretend to be concrete when
      simply typing words from a keyboard]:
      soophia, cleverness, wisdom in common things, perfect scientific
      knowledge, belongs in the ontological domain.
      philosophy, the love of this wisdom or knowledge, is also ontological
      in nature.
      table, as a material thing, belongs in the ontical domain. we may
      need practical wisdom in order to make one or put one to imaginative
      use, but we need philosophy, that intangible good, that ontological
      reality, to question the nature of a table, and the relationship of
      human perception to that table.

      Hartmann posits categories of inanimate, non-sentient animate,
      sentient animate, and conscious [spiritual] animate (this is all from
      memory, and from reading his work in translation).
      So table would be in first category, then flower, then spaniel, then
      human being.

      Brief initial definitions, then.

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
      > Let me try to get into the most difficult of philosophical waters,
      > without disappearing beneath the waves. I want to elucidate
      > Heidegger's distinction between the ontical and the ontological,
      which
      > is, in my view, intimately related to Nikolai Hartmann's ontological
      > category hierarchy, with the aim of explaining the precise nature of
      > my distrust of the concept, choice, especially in its final,
      > political, consequences. It may be advisable to take this in
      stages.
      > Taking a deep breath, I post this first.
      >
      > Louise
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic