Anyone thinking wholes and parts are ontic categories is either a fraudester or a stupid philosopher (i.e. doubly fraudster). There is no such ontic categories. You construct new wholes to reveal the underlying fragments, you glue the fragments to uncover new wholes ad infinitum.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
And yet one must have some access to those parts to create one's wholes. Which is tricky if it would take more matter than the part of the universe one finds oneself standing in contains in order to access a different part. This is a materially epistemological problem.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @robmyers
To be honest, this stuff you are saying are just continental baby foods. This is not how science works. What you say about the universe or matter is more like a whimsical metaphysical shopping list from the next door grocery store.
1 reply 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
The transcendental shopping list that needs no evaluation against the shelves of the grocery store in the adjacent cosmic locale is not science either. Stop reinventing OOO, it's not a good look.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @robmyers
You keep mentioning cosmic locales or universe. What are these really? How do you know they are there? What are their attributes that make them necessary? And more importantly, why do you think what I told you is a version of OOO?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza
Their necessity and nature within the frame of this discussion is established by this being about the possibility of access in any meaningful sense, which is why this is an epistemological question and seeking to make it one of (the rhetoric of…) ontology is familiarly misguided
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @robmyers
Yes, isn't this what I was talking about? However, you need to be careful here. We can still talk about them ontologically within the established epistemic frames, but we can't do is to treat them ontically . I mentioned ontic in my post, not ontological.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Essentially what we have to avoid is the ontic hypothesization of parts and wholes.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @robmyers
Just like the ontic reification of objects.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.