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 yes, I misread it, true. Sorry for the confusion
-
No need. I'm sure it was my Penglish that wreaked havoc.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And the misunderstanding stems from the fact that you asked the question as a philosophical one and you talked about ontology, so the terminology was simply in line with the disciplines you invoked. Never mind, I misread the comment about traditional philosophical terminology.
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.