Zulu Ball Dress Colors

On the foundations of ontology

I resume a matter already contained in previous posts, but I do not put in good light.

eight-twentieth century with the explosion of scientific knowledge, science, and in particular the natural sciences (especially physics ) required to remove from the task of philosophy to answer the question "What exists?".

respect to this claim philosophy has reacted in various ways. One way which I think is still valid is the first noted the difficult situation they are in the sciences, divided into at least three major regions: the natural sciences, exact sciences and the "human" sciences. (The last group of science, science "of spirit "or" socio-historical "really are not as consistent with each other, just think of the different perspectives which give rise to the story on the one hand, with the whole set of special stories: art history, economic history .. . and cut theoretical disciplines such as psychology, which is divided into different schools ...). Because only the natural sciences are claiming to answer the ontological question? Mathematics has nothing to do with "objects" ? The "human" sciences do not deal well with their "objects"? "Objects" in the sense of something shared, intersubjective, on which we can exchange opinions and theories on which we can make because everyone can understand what we're talking about.

From here, I think, come the kind of ontological proposals trichotomous, speaking of "three worlds", "Three Kingdoms" and so on, then agreeing to distinguish between different modes of existence.

The problem that arises at this point is: why not extend the ability of art to ground ontology? Even the art is given to the phenomenon that we can compare to "objects", to exchange views on them. I think of the great characters of literature, to the worlds created by the imagination but you can share, are intersubjective. It can also be argued that these objects do not exist, but if we have already agreed to distinguish different kinds of lives we can agree to talk about non-existing objects, or even distinguish between types of absence (for example I could say that the numbers do not exist, but in a different sense from that in which no there are the characters of literature, and in a sense there are still other things of the past ...).

Philosophy has already extensively investigated these possibilities, it is taken in hand and then his task ontology, and itself has always been to do with "objects", "objectivity" : philosophical concepts, or "superconcetti," which reminds me how Franca D'Agostini are more than three (their list, he wrote, is in principle open): the three mentioned in the previous post are only those identified in the Middle Ages and the minimum list, as short as possible. So

philosophy, science, arts, all have, to varying degrees and in different ways, to do with "objectivity" and therefore have a voice in the ontology to help give an answer to his fundamental question. Philosophy in particular, took its role as a discipline that manages to bring different cultural perspectives and knowledge link.

And religion? Religion is not, precisely because the "objectivity" that produces strongly conflicting: we think of the contrasts between theism and atheism, between monotheism and polytheism, and among the monotheistic religions themselves!