In my own investigations of things, I found I did a few things, to my surprise: I ditched Epistemology. I focus on Ontologies. Ontologies-as-basically word-lists. But what kinds of words? Concepts. Ontologies consist of concepts. But what’s a concept? This one bugged me forever until I found “Theory-Theory” and found myself agreeing with it over “Theory of Mind” as it seems to ring more true. [that humans make theories – it’s what we do]. So: A concept is a theory of a category. Boom. For me that says it. Finally got it. Now, borrowing from notions of “private and public” language, I think we each have many ontologies, some shared with others – even standardized, and some are our own. Since we tend to “share words”, we can be talking to each other using all the same WORDS, but meaning entirely different things because we our working from different ontologies: different hierarchies of concepts formed from theories of categories. It’s amazing communication happens at all.

In my own investigations of things, I found I did a few things, to my surprise:

I ditched Epistemology.
I focus on Ontologies.
Ontologies-as-basically word-lists.

But what kinds of words?

Concepts. Ontologies consist of concepts.

But what’s a concept? This one bugged me forever until I found “Theory-Theory” and found myself agreeing with it over “Theory of Mind” as it seems to ring more true. [that humans make theories – it’s what we do].

So:

A concept is a theory of a category.

Boom. For me that says it. Finally got it.

Now, borrowing from notions of “private and public” language, I think we each have many ontologies, some shared with others – even standardized, and some are our own.

Since we tend to “share words”, we can be talking to each other using all the same WORDS, but meaning entirely different things because we our working from different ontologies: different hierarchies of concepts formed from theories of categories.

It’s amazing communication happens at all.

—-

Now I don’t know if I am in line with Wittgenstein or not. Never read him outside of quotes. But from what you said there and what I’d heard, what I’m thinking _seems_ to have a family resemblence to Wittgenstein.

======

“Justified belief” as a concept never ‘clicked’ for me. I tried for YEARS to find a spot for it but it’s just not how I think.

I’m kind of a GO / NO-GO kind of guy. Not so much binary but rather I don’t like the wibbly-wobbly notions when they never seem to get anywhere.

=====

 

BUT – important point — when I speak of ontologies I’m speaking in a computer science fashion.
 
http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-definition-2007.htm
—–
 Well, I wouldn’t want to dissuade anyone from following what’s important to them and pursing it in the way that’s important to them.I found what works for my way of thinking but I have no idea what’s the correct or best way to go about it.

=====
 My main pursuit isn’t truth but authenticity — what’s my own voice? So, basically, filling out my own ontology and I hope everybody does so for themselves as well in the ways that are in line with whatever their natures are.
=====

Leave a comment

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


6 + = thirteen

Leave a Reply