[MD] Mereological nihilism

[Ham Priday]

Marsha --



> I've already stated that there is a relationship between philosophy
> and science.  The last forty-five years of science has definitely had
> an impact on philosophical thinking in the West, especially
> ontology.  At one time metaphysics was considered folly by many
> scientists and philosophers.  Today its importance is having a revival.

What do you consider that relationship to be?  Science and Philosophy, as I 
have pointed out before, are two altogether different approaches to 
understanding.  The scientific approach is to explore the experiential 
universe for factual knowledge that can be applied within the framework of 
physical laws and principles.  Philosophy develops theories based on logic 
and intuition to explain fundamental reality, such as the nature of being 
(ontology), the means of knowledge (epistemology), and the origins and order 
of the universe (cosmology).  Only cosmology "straddles the fence" between 
Science and Philosophy, mainly because astrophysicists lack empirical 
evidence to support various theories of creation and thus tend to lead in 
formulating the "philosophy of Science."

> You've stated in another post that Essentialism is oriented toward
> the individual, but you're totally disregarding the metaphysics of
> other cultures?  You're including only those who think and value like
> you?  Valid philosophical thinking isn't unique to the Western mind.

I don't see metaphysics as a cultural endeavor.  Logic and intuition are 
utilized universally in the reasoning process.  We're not talking about 
religion here, which has its roots in tribal or cultural ritual and dogma. 
The Eastern religions, as far as I am aware, are not founded on reason but 
on psychic "self-development" through meditation and the elimination of 
desire.  If you read Confucius or Buddha, you're not likely to find a 
metaphysical ontology outlined there.  In fact, Eastern mysticism is as 
averse to intellectual reasoning as Western philosophy is to religion.

You must understand that the philosophy I call Essentialism originated with 
me and reflects my own concept of reality.  It's not an anthology of what 
others, East or West, may have called "essence", and I haven't attempted to 
conform to some collective standard of what metaphysics should be.  The only 
reason I cite other philosophers at all is to support my own ideas or to 
demonstrate the fallacies I see in their reality theories.  Philosophy, like 
experience and value, is a personal matter.  I'm always happy to explain my 
philosophy, or compare it with another if asked; but I will never force my 
ideas or opinions on someone else.  That would be dogmatic and 
authoritarian, and I disapprove of such a practice.

Essentially yours,
Ham