Ontology and Existentialism
Apr 23, 2022 2:33:29 GMT -8
Post by The Ninevite on Apr 23, 2022 2:33:29 GMT -8
What is the difference between ontology and existentialism?
Ontology, what is it? The only definite thing about ontology is often that it does mean what it sounds like, it's a priori reasoning, and the study of sources consulted, and research done before getting on to logic. Pretrial hearings before major court dates are ontological. Bibliographies at the ends of sophomore research papers are ontological, too.
Ontology asks the question "What is there?" or just "What exists?" "What have we here?" is an ontological question that might be asked on the first day of a long and arduous job assignment. A surveyor who plans to build himself a ranch with farmland or a venture capitalist who is sure enough of his business acumen that he will invest in enough stock and merchandise to trade with in a business establishment would be very likely to ask himself what he had to work with and what else existed in the market that he could acquire. Ontology is something that most people do every day, maybe all the time. Keeping a shop as a clerk, stockist, business owner and bookkeeper who rectifies closing sales records at the end of the day is sometimes called "rolling ontology".
Ontology can seem obvious and is sometimes easy to gloss over, but if it's required for a proof you plan to produce, then it's important to pay close attention to research and anything that you will need to illustrate your proof or to have on have as a reference for your citations. The best example I've ever seen given of prior ontology in action is arithmetic. Without the prior knowledge of arithmetic, it will be impossible for us to learn differential calculus.
Besides the fact that prior ontology is often a prerequisite class that you have fulfilled to get on to the logical proof you want to make with what you know, there is the fact that a rational proof needs a comparison point. Historically, the comparison point for ontology is found in metaphysics. There is a sophistry inherent in Sartre's existentialism, because ontological fats are things like a logical argument which is both sound in principle and reasoned with valid arguments completely, or workable engineering blueprints. Ontological facts don't yet exist in the solid world of manufactured automobiles for example, but their logic is complete, and the drafter's blueprints have been finished.
"Prior ontology" is often invoked in a long and complex dialogue, especially in religion, which normally has generations of people in its adherent past, and at late developed stages is engaged in by people who not only have at times varied numbers of different seminars and prayer meetings in their church attendance notes, but also who have different and different numbers of foundational writings, classics from the last century, and current press released from denominational printers in their libraries.
It's more difficult to meet new people with fellow interests if you rely too much on prior ontology as a point of reference, but depending on how deep your own interest in a subject matter is, you may feel a pull to move on from nihilistic clubhouses and be slow to accept new faces in your own tradition steeped locations. This brings people to the question, well without "prior ontology" itself in out context, what is prior to ontology, and the answer to that is set in philosophical stone, it's grammatical linguistics! Everyone who is invested in an area of study would rather be with other people who have done background reading if it's a class, but I tend to find that there are too may sly, misleading, deliberately obscure, and overtly off topic humorous "reference citations" to alleged "prior ontology" in some cases. There are occult circles, and some societies while not actually occult per se are just private.
Ontology is a deep subject; it is supposed to be profound. When your freshman philosophy professor asks you "what exists", you're really supposed to take that very metaphysically. You might ought to start your enumerative list with "God exists" is you intend to pass his course. "God exists," he will say, "yes, and what else"? Ontology is a subject similar to economist in many ways, and in common with economics, it is sometimes bast known for its surface adherents who only got about as far as the introductory subheading of the first chapter. The economics teacher and textbook begin by telling you that everything costs something, but what kind of cost did it have? Labor preformed is a cost. Opportunity lost in another field of human endeavors was a cost. There is also an ontological cost, which is related to the value of your business in terms of your own reputation. Do you generate tourism? That was a return on your ontological investment in the trade.
Ontology is also well known, the subject is enormous, and the body of knowledge is immense, but it's finite. If you really feel a burden to master all of ontology before your expiration due date back to the big library in the stained-glass skylight, keep on keeping on. It is perfectly possible to learn and practice absolutely all of ontology. Existentialism, by contrast, is considerably less many splendored. What is existentialism, here in direct contrast to ontology? Well one way to explain it is to say that Sartre's existentialism follows on directly in philosophical epistemology from Kant's deontological ethics. Here we have an interest of a "strange loop", strange loops are discoursed upon in great detail by some computer scientists, especially artificial intelligence theorists. The best known of these is Douglas Hofstadter, who wrote a book called "I Am a Strange Loop", as well as the famous underground cult classic "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". A strange loop is a recursive algorithm programmed with the "GOTO" command used repeatedly, and the original strange loop is also known as a programming bug or design flaw, illustrated by a simple two-line program that reads,
10 Print "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
A closed loop programming system is the basis of an endlessly scrolling "platformer" graphics-based videogame, for example Asteroids, Space Invaders, or Defender. It can be represented on a visual graph showing instances of each recursion to the starting point, which will result in the generation of the visual fractal. Closed loops and iterations are combined in the video gamers programming system, with recursions being GOTO loopbacks at the end of each level, and iterations being the random repeated generations of scenes founded in sprite arrays, like those found in Space Invaders, or graphic mazes like those seen in Pac-Man.
The contrast between ontology and existential ideology is like the contrast between machine assembly programing and video game design. A complete ontological idea is more than a material fact, it has isometric symmetry. What makes an ontological fact ontological is its completeness, an example of a true ontological fact is the complete Thirteen Books of the Elements by the Ancient Euclid. In legal language, an actual ontological fact is "inalienable". Just as Thomas Jefferson asserts the Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness are inalienable, a knowledgeable engineer is aware that each theorem Euclid proves is inalienable from the totality of his ontological work. Each complete Theorem of Geometry, true and complete in itself as a standalone proof, is still inalienable from the author's complete description of isometry and is also inseparable from its place in the order in which the total number of Theorems is derived.
Ontology is practiced with an a priori axial starting gate, and its aim is to account for all eventualities from the original statement. One definite requirement of ontology overlooked by beginners is that the statement it is practiced from has to be finite and in its final form. A good starting place for ontological analysis would be something like a bipartisan national debate for political office; the past participation of two argumentative speakers will give you starting material for a rational analysis. The transcript of a court proceeding argued by two attorneys is a good starting place, but a finalized Bill of Law or written judicial decision isn't valid, the finished legislation has to be considered a law, and you might find your own reasons in and for it, but it's not rational until you step up to the podium with it for a two-way debate. In this lies the abstruse "fuzzy logic" fallacy that causes existentialists and otologists to be mistaken for each other and the two approaches to logic to be confused with each other by beginning, intermediate, and at times even advanced philosophers. Existentialism is only the recognition that something does exist. if it's an architectural edifice that has its gates facing East like the walled city of Jerusalem, then it is, and if it's a thing clearly in its final form, you are ready to ask why it is the way it is, or to seek aesthetic meaning in it.
Ontology, what is it? The only definite thing about ontology is often that it does mean what it sounds like, it's a priori reasoning, and the study of sources consulted, and research done before getting on to logic. Pretrial hearings before major court dates are ontological. Bibliographies at the ends of sophomore research papers are ontological, too.
Ontology asks the question "What is there?" or just "What exists?" "What have we here?" is an ontological question that might be asked on the first day of a long and arduous job assignment. A surveyor who plans to build himself a ranch with farmland or a venture capitalist who is sure enough of his business acumen that he will invest in enough stock and merchandise to trade with in a business establishment would be very likely to ask himself what he had to work with and what else existed in the market that he could acquire. Ontology is something that most people do every day, maybe all the time. Keeping a shop as a clerk, stockist, business owner and bookkeeper who rectifies closing sales records at the end of the day is sometimes called "rolling ontology".
Ontology can seem obvious and is sometimes easy to gloss over, but if it's required for a proof you plan to produce, then it's important to pay close attention to research and anything that you will need to illustrate your proof or to have on have as a reference for your citations. The best example I've ever seen given of prior ontology in action is arithmetic. Without the prior knowledge of arithmetic, it will be impossible for us to learn differential calculus.
Besides the fact that prior ontology is often a prerequisite class that you have fulfilled to get on to the logical proof you want to make with what you know, there is the fact that a rational proof needs a comparison point. Historically, the comparison point for ontology is found in metaphysics. There is a sophistry inherent in Sartre's existentialism, because ontological fats are things like a logical argument which is both sound in principle and reasoned with valid arguments completely, or workable engineering blueprints. Ontological facts don't yet exist in the solid world of manufactured automobiles for example, but their logic is complete, and the drafter's blueprints have been finished.
"Prior ontology" is often invoked in a long and complex dialogue, especially in religion, which normally has generations of people in its adherent past, and at late developed stages is engaged in by people who not only have at times varied numbers of different seminars and prayer meetings in their church attendance notes, but also who have different and different numbers of foundational writings, classics from the last century, and current press released from denominational printers in their libraries.
It's more difficult to meet new people with fellow interests if you rely too much on prior ontology as a point of reference, but depending on how deep your own interest in a subject matter is, you may feel a pull to move on from nihilistic clubhouses and be slow to accept new faces in your own tradition steeped locations. This brings people to the question, well without "prior ontology" itself in out context, what is prior to ontology, and the answer to that is set in philosophical stone, it's grammatical linguistics! Everyone who is invested in an area of study would rather be with other people who have done background reading if it's a class, but I tend to find that there are too may sly, misleading, deliberately obscure, and overtly off topic humorous "reference citations" to alleged "prior ontology" in some cases. There are occult circles, and some societies while not actually occult per se are just private.
Ontology is a deep subject; it is supposed to be profound. When your freshman philosophy professor asks you "what exists", you're really supposed to take that very metaphysically. You might ought to start your enumerative list with "God exists" is you intend to pass his course. "God exists," he will say, "yes, and what else"? Ontology is a subject similar to economist in many ways, and in common with economics, it is sometimes bast known for its surface adherents who only got about as far as the introductory subheading of the first chapter. The economics teacher and textbook begin by telling you that everything costs something, but what kind of cost did it have? Labor preformed is a cost. Opportunity lost in another field of human endeavors was a cost. There is also an ontological cost, which is related to the value of your business in terms of your own reputation. Do you generate tourism? That was a return on your ontological investment in the trade.
Ontology is also well known, the subject is enormous, and the body of knowledge is immense, but it's finite. If you really feel a burden to master all of ontology before your expiration due date back to the big library in the stained-glass skylight, keep on keeping on. It is perfectly possible to learn and practice absolutely all of ontology. Existentialism, by contrast, is considerably less many splendored. What is existentialism, here in direct contrast to ontology? Well one way to explain it is to say that Sartre's existentialism follows on directly in philosophical epistemology from Kant's deontological ethics. Here we have an interest of a "strange loop", strange loops are discoursed upon in great detail by some computer scientists, especially artificial intelligence theorists. The best known of these is Douglas Hofstadter, who wrote a book called "I Am a Strange Loop", as well as the famous underground cult classic "Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". A strange loop is a recursive algorithm programmed with the "GOTO" command used repeatedly, and the original strange loop is also known as a programming bug or design flaw, illustrated by a simple two-line program that reads,
10 Print "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
A closed loop programming system is the basis of an endlessly scrolling "platformer" graphics-based videogame, for example Asteroids, Space Invaders, or Defender. It can be represented on a visual graph showing instances of each recursion to the starting point, which will result in the generation of the visual fractal. Closed loops and iterations are combined in the video gamers programming system, with recursions being GOTO loopbacks at the end of each level, and iterations being the random repeated generations of scenes founded in sprite arrays, like those found in Space Invaders, or graphic mazes like those seen in Pac-Man.
The contrast between ontology and existential ideology is like the contrast between machine assembly programing and video game design. A complete ontological idea is more than a material fact, it has isometric symmetry. What makes an ontological fact ontological is its completeness, an example of a true ontological fact is the complete Thirteen Books of the Elements by the Ancient Euclid. In legal language, an actual ontological fact is "inalienable". Just as Thomas Jefferson asserts the Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness are inalienable, a knowledgeable engineer is aware that each theorem Euclid proves is inalienable from the totality of his ontological work. Each complete Theorem of Geometry, true and complete in itself as a standalone proof, is still inalienable from the author's complete description of isometry and is also inseparable from its place in the order in which the total number of Theorems is derived.
Ontology is practiced with an a priori axial starting gate, and its aim is to account for all eventualities from the original statement. One definite requirement of ontology overlooked by beginners is that the statement it is practiced from has to be finite and in its final form. A good starting place for ontological analysis would be something like a bipartisan national debate for political office; the past participation of two argumentative speakers will give you starting material for a rational analysis. The transcript of a court proceeding argued by two attorneys is a good starting place, but a finalized Bill of Law or written judicial decision isn't valid, the finished legislation has to be considered a law, and you might find your own reasons in and for it, but it's not rational until you step up to the podium with it for a two-way debate. In this lies the abstruse "fuzzy logic" fallacy that causes existentialists and otologists to be mistaken for each other and the two approaches to logic to be confused with each other by beginning, intermediate, and at times even advanced philosophers. Existentialism is only the recognition that something does exist. if it's an architectural edifice that has its gates facing East like the walled city of Jerusalem, then it is, and if it's a thing clearly in its final form, you are ready to ask why it is the way it is, or to seek aesthetic meaning in it.