Ontology

Sapphire · Post by **Sapphire** » August 29th, 2015, 7:55 pm

Do ontological perspectives matter in our daily life? Please help me with this thank you

Lagayscienza · Post by **Lagayscienza** » September 7th, 2015, 6:23 am

I'm not sure what an "ontological perspective" is. If you would like to clarify that then I might be able to say whether ontological perspectives matter in our daily life.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 13th, 2015, 9:11 am

Sapphire wrote:Do ontological perspectives matter in our daily life? Please help me with this thank you

Yes, they do.

You need to find out what 'ontological perspectives' means. Then you need to discover some real people's ontological perspectives so that you know what ontological perspectives real people have.

Then you need to evaluate the influence that some specific ontological perspective has upon this group of people especially in their daily lives.

Then you need to point out possible further researches among various persons.

Even children could be your subjects for research regarding their ontological perspectives, although you would have to ask their teachers' or parents' permission, and frame your questions to suit the age of the child.

Post by **Sy Borg** » September 13th, 2015, 10:08 am

To me it means trying to get a better handle on the actual reality of a thing or situation rather than its symbolism or a model used to describe it. This is useful to help one work things out without needing to be told.

For instance, the understanding that we are mostly water and a set of ecosystems for microbes may lead a person to maintain hydration and consume foods or supplements that promote healthy gut flora, and to minimise use of antibiotics - without waiting to be told by experts that it's a good idea to drink x glasses of water per day and to eat yoghurt or take probiotics. If you understand the principle then you're more likely to take a balanced and diligent approach.

The understanding that beneath our pretty outer appearances, shave just a few millimetres off us and we all look like zombie monsters, full or gore and goo. Remember that next time you watch the proudly beautiful on TV.

On the other hand, if you can try to get a more realistic idea of the scale of the Earth and how your entire suburb is too small to be seen on the surface of the planet, and to look out and realise that we are floating through the endless voids of space at about 150 kilometres per second, the fact that you may have inadvertently offended a valued primate in your life doesn't seem such a catastrophe.

If you can imagine your own death and not baulk from the fact of your mortality it might change the way you live your life.

Or one can simply live in the world of symbols and models, following prescribed paths without giving reality a second thought. There's many ways to live a life, and it changes over time.

Lagayscienza · Post by **Lagayscienza** » September 13th, 2015, 10:11 am

So, Belinda, what is an "ontological perspective"?

I understand "ontology"to be the study of what exists. Does Sapphire mean a certain way of looking at what exists?

I guess you can tell I never did more than a unit of philosophy in my undergraduate degree.

I'm here to learn.

-- Updated September 14th, 2015, 12:13 am to add the following --

Greta, you must have a microsecond before I did. I wish I'd read your post first.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » September 13th, 2015, 2:22 pm

Yes, it's the study of what exists or in other words, what is real. For instance some people think that only the physical exists .

Other people think that only mind exists in which case what seems to common sense to be physical is given form and substance by our minds.

Others think that only one thing exist and the way we relate to it is physically and mentally.

Some people think that God is a unique substance that is apart from the mental and the physical.

I believe that the easiest way to learn ontology is to read Descartes on substance, although you might be more at home with George Berkeley. The pre-Socratics also have interesting thoughts on the basics of what exists.

Lagayscienza · Post by **Lagayscienza** » September 13th, 2015, 3:41 pm

Thanks, Belinda.

I think get it now.

But I doubt sapphire does.

I'm inclined to think that what exists is what can/could, in principle, be measured. I have a problem with the idea that there are unmeasurable properties that have any ontological relevance. Surely dualism sucks. Isn't it just spooky-kooky woo-ism?

Post by **Sy Borg** » September 13th, 2015, 7:06 pm

Lagayscienza wrote:Greta, you must have a microsecond before I did. I wish I'd read your post first.

You didn't miss much - just more attempts to elucidate thoughts that end up being rendered incomprehensible by my ADD brain fades and inability to edit afterwards, alas.

Lagayscienza wrote:I'm inclined to think that what exists is what can/could, in principle, be measured. I have a problem with the idea that there are unmeasurable properties that have any ontological relevance. Surely dualism sucks. Isn't it just spooky-kooky woo-ism?

Lagaya, duality - or apparent duality from our perspective - is a possibility that at this stage cannot be proved or disproved. Some think that energy is fundamental and information and life/consciousness emerge. Others think information/math/geometry is fundamental, and from it emerges energy and consciousness. Others again think that consciousness is fundamental from which springs emergent matter/information. A number of possibilities and no proofs.

Unmeasurable qualities of reality may (or may not) lack practical relevance but that says that little about their ontological reality - and we can't measure what we don't know exists.

I don't subscribe to logical positivism, which I see as a species of primates asserting that they almost completely understand the nature of reality. These primates have historically lacked epistemic humility and each generation of them believed that they understood the nature of reality - that they were the first to finally crack the puzzle of reality. These primates persist with this fiction despite continually being proved wrong through history because confidence is favoured by evolution (and society). In truth these hominids are still in the process of civilising (with some way to go) and travelling to even their closest solar system is an absolute impossibility for them. All their assumptions about reality are based on residual photons from the past - sometimes the very distant past - reaching their eyes. Our visual bias also tends to skew our ideas of "what is real".