Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tag: Ontology

Levels of Human Action – Stages and Interplays of Human Reality

Photo: Chesswarehouse.com

Humans purposefully act every day and all the time. They act differently, however, every single time, as they are all immersed in a changing environment.[1] As such, all actions are different, at least, according to time, where ‘time’ here is intended as conventional and landscape-time (meaning, the natural flow of events).[2] Instead, from a human perspective, it is the action taken that determines the perception of time flow and the related awareness and meaning of time change.[3] This is a flat way to understand different types of actions, however, because the order in which actions are executed does not tell anything about their different nature, that is, the type of causal events they are immersed and part of in relation to some desired effect to be determined.

As Ludwig von Mises argued, human action is based on the premise of change: “Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into agency, is aiming at ends and goals (…) [human action] is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life.”[4] Although all actions are taken according to specific dispositional belief, that is, according to a given intention formulable in a sentence in which the factual components indicate the desired state of affairs to be reached,[5] they can be classified according to what piece of reality they are intended to bring change.

Preconditions and Premises for Understandability of Human Actions

The best way to understand the different typologies of actions is to divide them into causal/effect categories. Any purposeful human action is rationally calculated in function of given desired effects intended to be reachable through a given intention to be fully translated into the realm of extension.[6] For understanding how humans act, it is necessary to assume that they know how they can make a meaningful difference in the world of the extension.[7] In other words, they assume that they can translate their intentions into proper action, where the action is causally determined by a correspondent state of the mind, whose factual determination is also the definition of the goal to be achieved through the action itself.[8] It is assumed that any mental state is part of a chain of causes whose result is action and its associated state of mind.[9]

A Pluralistic Understanding of Time – Time as Eternal truths

Abstract

‘Time is said in many ways’, to paraphrase Aristotle. In this essay, time is comprehended in four distinct yet parallel ways: subjective time, event time, conventional time, and landscape time. Subjective time measures the interval between two subjective experiences recorded by memory. Event time represents the order of events involved in a process. Conventional time is the measurement of a given physical interval registered by a clock and intersubjectively assumed as common. Landscape time refers to the current disposition of all changing facts in the universe. These four types of time are independent and autonomous from one another, as the essay will demonstrate. Although distinct, these time types can be related, collectively contributing to our understanding of the concept of time and how we use the term in language. The conclusion supports a pluralistic view of time, where time is partitioned into four categories, each explaining a distinct portion of reality.


Introduction – Time in the History of Philosophy

Time was not a major concern of the Greek-Roman philosophical tradition. From one side, time was conceived as the form of the appearances, that is of what it does not exist. Parmenides, essentially, banned time from his ontology, as the only things that exist is ‘the being,’ which was to be intended as eternal, meaning a-temporal, an object that does not change, hence does not exist in time.[1] Any subsequent metaphysical approach which endorsed implicitly or explicitly any form of Parmenidean ontology (something that does exist in its perfection because it never changes) is, in a way or another, banning time in a very fundamental sense.[2] Both Plato and Aristotle essentially (here intended ‘literally,’ i.e. in their understanding of what ‘really exists’) endorsed Parmenides’ vision. For some interesting reasons, today this notion is called ‘Platonic,’ but the conception of a perfect unchanging being independent from how things look like in and through time is, in fact, originated by Parmenides.

Ontology as Systematic Classification System

Personal observations and understanding of realist applied ontology


Abstract

The paper is about my observations and notes on applied ontology as systematic classification systems. The post explores what an ontology is, what is aimed for, how it shaped, what is its philosophical foundation, why this foundation is compatible with multiple philosophical positions. Inside the document, digression and further specifications and arguments are drawn to arrive at a deeper understanding of several multiple facets of the complex universe called ‘applied ontology.’ This is the second step toward the elaboration of a consistent ontology for my family enterprise, which will ultimately be used to ground its expansion in the market. Even though practically oriented, the observations can turn to be useful for all the researchers and scholars who are struggling to understand what an ontology is. That is to say to those who are not driven by a philosophical perspective (only). This is a working progress, and I will be ready to reply to any inquiring, comments, and questions from the interested reader.