[MD] "100% confident"

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ian --


You said to David:
> Ontology as the creative linguistic act - defining what you will
> "deem" to exist - as the basis for your epistemology (or poetry)
> going forward .... I'm fine with that.

> Ontology as existence - is where I jump off - when metaphysicians
> start talking as if this ontology is about (a) what actually exists in
> some absolute reality, and (b) whether that is provable one way or
> another, empirically or logically.

Your skepticism--or should I say agnosticism?--about ontology represents a 
view here that I find incredulous.

You can accept an ontology as a "creative linguistic act" but not as a 
theory of "what actually exists".  What do you suppose is the philosopher's 
objective in postulating an ontology?   Do you think it's simply to dream up 
a Wonderland fantasy for our entertainment or amusement?  Is that what you 
believe was Pirsig's intention in developing the MoQ?

Admittedly, ontologists are dealing with concepts that are unprovable, 
"empirically or logically".  But that's not the point.  Ontology is a 
legitimate theory about the nature and relations of being or existents.  It 
is not "poetry" or fictional prose; in fact, it is every bit as serious as 
Newton's or Einstein's theories. What makes ontology significant is that it 
extends man's perspective, and arguably his wisdom, beyond empirical 
knowledge.  Just because an ontology (or an epistemology, for that matter) 
cannot be "falsified" does not mean it is frivolous or without meaning.

I am greatly troubled by the cynicism demonstrated in this forum toward the 
traditional branches of philosophical inquiry, including ontology, 
cosmology, epistemology, and metaphysics.  There are far too many 
"abstractions" being touted as fundamental principles, and too many 
fundamentals being dismissed as "reifications".  The more we regard 
philosophy as mere aphorisms and platitudes about reality, the less value 
and wisdom we will gain from it.  Anyone who automatically rejects a concept 
that is not substantiated by empirical experience cannot call himself a 
philosopher and, in my opinion, shouldn't even be discussing it.

--Ham