Ontological rationality

GrowingSmaller · Mar 16, 2015

Received said:
I'd say that practical reasoning actualizes the goods that abstract reasoning ascertains. Abstract reasoning is itself ontological reasonng, and more technically ontological reasoning is one type of abstract reasoning (the others being ethics and value theory).

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.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 16, 2015

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.

Received · Mar 16, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
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.

Yes, but also consider that if everything is ontological, nothing is. I.e., there's on point in using the word "ontological" if in fact everything is basically ontological, which I agree in a sense it is. This is all semantics, really.

Received · Mar 16, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
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.

I'm not a fan of deontology, and really don't know how the de- morpheme works in terms of an ethical theory.

Received · Mar 16, 2015

Heidegger's distinction of the ontic and ontological modes might be useful here.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 17, 2015

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.

Radagast · Mar 17, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
I am not sure that all use of deontic logic is indicative of a standard deontological ethics though.

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.

Received · Mar 17, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
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.

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?"

GrowingSmaller · Mar 17, 2015

Radagast said:
In particular, you can't get from "is" to "ought" without some deontic/deontological axioms.

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.

GrowingSmaller · Mar 17, 2015

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful.

Click to expand...

How can one produce what is necessary, for if it is necessaery it is already pre-existent.

Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth!

Click to expand...

Thats dumb, if it is indiscriminate. I know he favoured discrimination, so why the mistake?

I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

--Nietzsche

Click to expand...

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".

Radagast · Mar 17, 2015

GrowingSmaller said:
That sounds right! I think that even simple creature do so though, in a "presymboloic" sense.

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."

GrowingSmaller · Mar 18, 2015

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.

dms1972 · Mar 18, 2015

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

GrowingSmaller · Mar 19, 2015

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."

Ontological rationality

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Muslm Humanist

comes and goes

True love waits in haunted attics

Muslm Humanist

Muslm Humanist

comes and goes

Muslm Humanist

Well-Known Member

Muslm Humanist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency