[lit-ideas] and the Four-Category Ontology

  • From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "palma@xxxxxxxx" <palma@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:31:15 +0000

I tried but had been unable to track this 4dnowwatch, either as web "site" or 
as an rtefact, henceforth it is probaby slightly more illuminating if links are 
best of baraqa

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Donal McEvoy
Sent: 20 April 2013 01:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Grice and the Four-Category Ontology

From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>

>Grice worked with different types of ontologies. Finally he settled for a
"four-category ontology". And we think he did right.>

There is the scene in Spinal Tap where the guitarist is explaining that while 
most amps only go up to 10 his goes all the way up to 11 ["that's one louder"]: 
in that spirit, and while acknowleding that Popper wished to avoid the term 
"ontology" (essentially because of its "essentialist" connatations), Popper's 
Worlds 1-2-3 may be regarded as a three-category ontology of sorts, but does 
this "ontology" possibly go way up to 11 and even beyond? Apparently so: see 
Popper's Emory Lectures, now published as "Knowledge and the Mind-Body 
Problem". Ockham might be spinning in his grave except such motion might 
multiply entities needlessly.

======= Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: 
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer =======

Other related posts:

  • » [lit-ideas] and the Four-Category Ontology - Adriano Palma