From: Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms-AT-globalxs.nl>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 20:34:23 +0200
Subject: Re: ontology enjoys invisibility


Hallo Soren

Op dinsdag, 22-sep-98 schreef Soren Pedersen:

SP> > The ontology of something is its nature/essence, an answer to the
SP> > question, "What exactly is this?"
SP> > 
SP> > On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, tOlchOck . wrote:
SP> > 
SP> >> i was wondering if you all could offer me YOUR or what you would 
SP> >> consider to be the 'most accurate' definitions of the word 'ontology'? 
SP> 
SP> I think we should add that ontology is ahistorical. It is a spatial 
SP> phenomenon directly opposed to the chaos of time. "Only things 
SP> without history can be defined", as Nietzsche said.
SP> 
SP> - Soren
SP> 
Regards

Is there anything outside history? Ontology is very historical, it was theology for Duns Scotus, because God was the only necessary being of which nothing could be known except his being. For Heidegger ontology was radical phenomenology, because it was inquiry into the being of beings. Now the link between ontology and truth has disappeared, I would still be in favour, for historical reasons, to use the word for any inquiry into the illusion of being, the deception of appearance o the endless reference of phenomena.

-regards
  erik


 *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
  Erik Hoogcarspel           <    jehms-AT-globalxs.nl     ><       Boerhaaveln 99b     >
                             <    tl+31.(0)104157097    ><       3112 LE Schiedam    >
                             <    fx+31.(0)842113137    ><       Holland             >
 *===================================================================================*