That sounds good. Very good. But are ethical and value reasoning not based in ontology - and also science if we want to add rigor to the equation? Hence they are ontologicallly, and hopefully thereafter deontologically rational.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ontological rationality
- Thread starter GrowingSmaller
- Start date
But thanks for the tip off about "ontology" and "deontiology" having differing semantics. I am not sure that all use of deontic logic is indicative of a standard deontological ethics though. You can reason "i ought to eat if I am hungry" without even being human, never mind Immanuel Kant.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Wasnt heideggers "ontological" to do with Being? Which is basically "existence" rather than the "ontic" thing which exists? So we can have things or objects as objects of attention, but Being withdraws as soon as we try to grasp "it" as an it, because its not an it, rather its the transcending condition of there Being it's (things)...
Heidegger is one of my favourite philosophers. I used to be Neitszchean, but now I am sane and sober. Ironically, I think that Neitszche is todays philosopher of the rabble.
Heidegger is one of my favourite philosophers. I used to be Neitszchean, but now I am sane and sober. Ironically, I think that Neitszche is todays philosopher of the rabble.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,864
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Of course not. Never said it was.
My point was that the deontic/deontological, studying what ought to be, is quite different from the ontological, studying what is.
In particular, you can't get from "is" to "ought" without some deontic/deontological axioms.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Received
True love waits in haunted attics
Lol, *looks down at my own signature*
No, I think Nietzsche is the bomb.com, with incredible psychological insights, BUT I can totally see how he gets a bad following.Heidegger saw the ontic mode as the everyday mode of just moving about the world and taking things for granted. The ontological mode is where you really take not just beings but also Being seriously by implicitly asking the question "why are there beings rather than nothing?"
Upvote
0
That sounds right! I think that even simple creature do so though, in a "presymboloic" sense.
- (psychology) Not yet able to use symbols to communicate.
Upvote
0
How can one produce what is necessary, for if it is necessaery it is already pre-existent.
Thats dumb, if it is indiscriminate. I know he favoured discrimination, so why the mistake?
God created life and death (health and sickness) as a trial. Because we are limited in rationality, I think we will at times always have to say "no".
Upvote
0
- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,864
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I don't believe that those simple creatures are at all capable of formulating deontic propositions. And the rules of deontic logic certainly preclude getting "ought" from "is" without some axioms that already say "ought."
Upvote
0
So they are conscious, and have desires and drives. Would that not make their "field of experience" deontologically relevant, in that there would be "better and worse" aspects, causing advancement or avoidance?
What I believe is yes. But only their subconscious (or "non-conscious") mind operates with implicit deontological style reasoning. But even the bark of a dog may express it, just as does its behavior in general.
What I believe is yes. But only their subconscious (or "non-conscious") mind operates with implicit deontological style reasoning. But even the bark of a dog may express it, just as does its behavior in general.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've always had trouble with the term "deontology" - my own fault for not looking it up! But its maybe to do with some muddle of my own about figuring the meanings of some words.
I thought the 'de-' had significance as indicating a removal, or reversal:
but it doesn't seem to be that sort of word
from Greek deont-, comb. form of deon "that which is binding, duty," neuter present participle of dei "is binding;"
Online Etymology Dictionary
I thought the 'de-' had significance as indicating a removal, or reversal:
but it doesn't seem to be that sort of word
from Greek deont-, comb. form of deon "that which is binding, duty," neuter present participle of dei "is binding;"
Online Etymology Dictionary
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Thanks, never looked at the etymology in detail. Its interesting that both words "yoga" and "religion" are said to have a root connotation similar to binding also.
In Islam I think holding onto the "rope of Allah" may be voluntary acceptance of a religious way of life. "And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided."
>>> quotes from online etymological dictionary.
Yoga. yoga (n.)
1820, from Hindi yoga, from Sanskrit yoga-s, literally "union, yoking" (with the Supreme Spirit), from PIE root *yeug- "to join" (see jugular). Related: Yogic.
Religion.
....However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."
In Islam I think holding onto the "rope of Allah" may be voluntary acceptance of a religious way of life. "And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided."
>>> quotes from online etymological dictionary.
Yoga. yoga (n.)
1820, from Hindi yoga, from Sanskrit yoga-s, literally "union, yoking" (with the Supreme Spirit), from PIE root *yeug- "to join" (see jugular). Related: Yogic. Religion.
....However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods."
Upvote
0
Similar threads
