I understand that’s what actual identity is describing how it is defined-as. But I hold communication-as-basis rather than words-with-definitions-as-basis. We’re working from different ontologies.

I understand that’s what actual identity is describing how it is defined-as.

But I hold communication-as-basis rather than words-with-definitions-as-basis. We’re working from different ontologies.

=====

 

My current working model is as such, which may aid in communication:
 
Ontologies consist of concepts.
A concept is a theory of a category.
 
I am not implying that all is equal but rather by this trying to discern the source for miscommunication and disagreement and I find it usually centers around this.
=====
 As far as “actual identity” goes, I don’t think that is necessarily a thing. My proof is that different “zooms” can render a so-called object-with-identity irrational or nonexistent, quite simply.
=====
 Or in short, my ontology has a concept of “actual identity” as does yours.

But in mine, “actual identity” falls into a category of “fantastical notions that are given unreasonable importance”.

=====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ two = 6

Leave a Reply