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.
-
-
But in the traditional philosophical terminology, yes, they would be entities, ta onta.
-
Sure, but I really don't think that the talk of ta onta can be seamlessly comeensurated with how sciences or particularly physics and complexity science talk about such entities.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
No, I wasn't talking about atoms really, I just used it as an example in order to understand your point. Alright, I think I understand what you mean.
Thanks. 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.