Taxonomy
- Scruffy Nerf Herder
- Posts: 36
- Joined: November 29th, 2016, 3:51 am
Taxonomy
Often thought of primarily in the context of biological classification, taxonomy is an expansive philosophical subject that applies to every academic field. When thought of formally in studies of AI and how to develop taxonomies for computers, it was very aptly described as "knowledge representation", which is an appropriate phrase to think of when explaining taxonomy in most any context.
What is taxonomy? It is how things are classified, either individually or in relation to one another. Taxonomies are quite often hierarchical, and the look of a taxonomy is telling when discerning what is of primary interest in those things being classified, by people in that taxonomy's respective field.
There are many juicy tangents here that may or may not be of interest; for the sake of brevity I'll mention only two:
-A sensible caveat to begin with, in exposition of this tangent, is that it's not my intention to insult anyone's intelligence by basically introducing major areas of philosophy, rather it is my intention to give the reader a very definite context when contemplating the primary question of the tangent.
Taxonomy, in relation to ontology, logic, and epistemology, necessarily provokes questions more puzzling and potentially paradoxical than "the chicken or the egg".
Ontology studies first principles by asking the most fundamental questions possible about what it means simply for a thing to be a thing, i.e. 'being'. Logic studies language and our capacity to use it in order to reason by asking similarly fundamental questions about how fixed categories of terms, e.g. qualifiers, quantifiers, copulas, and predicates, to name a few, can be used together in certain patterns to constitute definite forms of reasoning (as in math), forms whose utility remain the same regardless of the actual content that is being framed in a logical form. Epistemology is companion to these others inasmuch as it asks fundamental questions about the means of knowledge, and what knowledge is.
Each of these latter three are used in discussion of the others, and before taxonomy is figured in at all we are in quite a complicated pickle when we ask ourselves which is based on which. Now insert taxonomy, which asks how we arrange information and represent it to ourselves, and you begin to see the enormity of the problem. So what comes first, guys?
-Asking one's self which is the best way to arrange knowledge and thus represent it to ourselves, is not so much a question of what is indisputably most proper but rather a question of what we are trying to do with the representation; what does that particular taxonomical system allow us to see? And so my question here for all of you is what you think about classifying and categorizing things... What are the different ways it can be done? What is most useful?
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: Taxonomy
There is a huge number of different ways categorizing can be done. An enormous number; a number way beyond what any human being can conceptualize or achieve, or even see.Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:And so my question here for all of you is what you think about classifying and categorizing things... What are the different ways it can be done? What is most useful?
What are the different ways it can be done? I ask you to start with way no. 1. and then proceed to way no. 2., and then to ... then to way number n-1, then way number n, where n is the absolute highest count of different ways categorizing can be done.
What is most useful of these? I think I'm going out on a limb, but I would venture to say categorization N is the most useful one, where N is one instance of any of (1st, 2nd, ... n-1th, nth) way of categorizing, and which by trial and study, turns out to be the most useful one. Without an empirical test, this "most useful one" can't be found, or would be very hard to find.
-- Updated December 1st, 2016, 2:10 am to add the following --
(As a side-issue: I never realized taxonomy can be so taxing in its monotony... haha. (-: )
-- Updated December 1st, 2016, 2:13 am to add the following --
I think you'd do better by placing F7TrtrvbIg in the first bracketed section between the = mark after yid and the close bracket mark.Scruffy Nerf Herder wrote:[yid=]F7TrtrvbIg[/yid]
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: March 8th, 2011, 4:21 pm
Re: Taxonomy
I like Thomas Aquinus's words,
definitio fit per genus proximum et differentiam specificam
"Definition is achieved through the proximate genus and specific difference".
The big question would be, does that apply to nature or being itself rather than (as we may tend to think) only just its eruption and split into the multiplicity "being of beings"? What an implication!
A question of taxonomy, of a more questionable sort, would be of what historically proceeds in philosophy itself, that more or less hold's on to its perennial questions. There is Hegel's oak tree, his metaphor of history, which is clearly not the ordinary taxonomical tree; where the growth and branching refutes or sublates itself. Still self conscious reflection on the tree would count every moment as equal, from bud to blossom and fruit, these refutations of a previous existences and exigencies - as equally essential - to what comes out of them, under the Platonic sun.
Maybe Schopenhaur was right to be skeptical of Hegel's history of philosophy and attempt at containing and classification of human spirit. Shopenhaur writes:
"THE divine Plato and the marvellous Kant unite their
mighty voices in recommending a rule, to serve as
the method of all philosophising as well as of all other
science. 1 Two laws, they tell us : the law of homogeneity
and the law of specification, should be equally observed,
neither to the disadvantage of the other."
What is interesting is that while Kant and Plato's categories do unite their voice, they are so different in other ways that it is difficult to reconcile. While Kant was busy categorizing the sorts of phenomenological experiences, and empirically oriented "propositions" we can make, (not incidentally giving rise to great schisms of schools in modern philosophy), Plato and Aristotle, and their theme of question, is a little more foreign sounding today. What would it be?
As for a history and dialogue - it would seem difficult to describe as a taxonomical tree. How we arrange information and represent it to ourselves seems to be in the notion, we are partial to, just the same, however we look, just as the moment of life itself is constantly splitting open into new branches, deferring on the difference, and that seems to be life, with or without a want or need for imputing a category!
-- Updated Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:14 pm to add the following --
PS. I'd classify (well for entertainment's sake_ Kant and Schopenhaur in similar terms as ahistorical thinkers, looking mainly to categorize the presence of beings, and what a present age of science looks to. I do really like Schopenhauer for what he does, and I think it is pretty essential.
But comparably, in order of method Hegel and Heidegger followed the perennial thematic, in their respective ways, of the question of being qua being They pay best respect to both heterogeneity and homogeneity, largely because they countenanced historical thinking, and a need to understand temporal being...
Well I am not sure this will be appreciated as the most logical response, but I think taxonomy (Greek taxis ‘arrangement’ + -nomia ‘distribution’) is kind of in an associative way, pretty central to philosophizing.
- Leon
- Posts: 87
- Joined: May 17th, 2016, 1:50 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Re: Taxonomy
His much discussed book "The world does not exist" tries to prove that the domain of domains; i.e. "the World" is something that cannot exist. There is no field of sense for fields of sense. The view from outside (Nagel) is impossible.
Taxonomy is all about domains and subdomains,but when there is not domain of domains it is only valid within a field of sense.
There is no "World" (with capital letter) in wich objects can be classified, and objects have all kinds of representations. The appereance of an object (as experience) is a matter of fact, and these can only be classified from within a worldview.
-- Updated January 8th, 2017, 8:51 pm to add the following --
I must correct myself:
1) sorry for the typos
2) my mentioning of "worldview" is wrong. According to Gabriel a worldview implies the view from outside which is impossible.
Constructivism (a world which has constructed representations) fails from the principle of ontology starting with fields of sense.
Also I think an experience is a thing on it's own. it is always real (whatever the subject), even if we were living in a virual world. How one would arrange experiences is always arbitrairy.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023