Sam’s (elementary) Ontology
I am posting this to try and vet some of my intuitions about metaphysics. It is very rough and unpolished, but I think I say what I am trying to say at the moment.
Don’t bother to read if you find philosophy boring—it is not very exciting prose, to say the least. Heck, it is probably not very good philosophy!
Metaphysics is a question of things.
Some-thing, any-thing, no-thing, and every-thing all express what it is we want to know about metaphysics—what we want to know about the world we assume to be a thing.
The “world” is the space that things inhabit. But that world is itself a thing.
So, the question becomes a question that grants the earlier point (of some-thing… over no-thing)…
and asks: What is a thing? Or, how does a thing becomes a thing—some-thing, any-thing, every-thing?
Here we find that a thing must be more than a thing.
It must be (“exist” is a better word) a subject.
To “exist,” in this way, is to be a subject.
An object, then, is no-thing.
A subject is everything else, including the object when we give it the integrity of some-thing, any-thing, or every-thing.
Now we move to question of how subjects remain “some-things”–how they remain in-the-world.
Which is precisely the question of constitution.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
It makes sense that “the question becomes a question that grants the earlier point (of some-thing… over no-thing)…”, but that isn’t (as some might think) an example of begging the question or a question with a hidden premise. I don’t know if that was what you wanted to imply, but the text could be interpreted that way. In any case the fact that the question is asked, makes unnecessary consideration of the ‘something/nothing’ problem (ala Descartes).
Why is there “something” rather than “nothing”?
ockraz: You are exactly right. I bring it up, although it seems obvious, simply to acknowledge that in order to begin, we must overcome the possibility that things are no-things. That existence is something to be questioned at all.
Gerald: That is the million dollar question now isn’t it! For me, I have no answer about the “why;” only the “what.” I do not know “why” some-thing exists instead of no-thing, but I do know that “what” exists is some-thing.
Sam: Quite right. That it is the case that there is something rather than nothing is dispensed with merely by virtue of the fact that someone asks about it- but ‘Why’ that is the case is a question with a hidden premise. That premise is that there is a ‘purpose’ or ’cause’ for there being something rather than nothing. One can reject that underlying premise, or one can say that the answer is God. I don’t see any other options.
Sam,
It seems that you are reducing metaphysics to some sort of phenomenology by insisting upon a univeral subjectivity.
However, metaphysics has historically been concieved as a discipline of thought that eschews the subjective, indeed even eschews the reliability of human perception in the study of its object. The tool of the metaphysician has been what is thought to be universal reason. But this reason is thought to be universal because it applies to the minds of God as well as men, and God is not properly speaking a subject.
There is a gap in your reasoning between the proposition “A thing must be more than a thing.” and “it must be (exist as) a subject.” this does not follow. It would follow that all things are caused, and could involve you in the proof for the existence of God, but it does not follow that all things are subjects, Indeed it my follow that all things are predicates.
But I doo like you thinking here.
Gerald,
There is something instead of nothing because God Loves. This is the very fabric of creation.
Ben: Thanks for your attention here. I am exposed as a phenomenologist. In fact, I wrote this to try and offer a simpler way to access the question of constitution (the phenomenological question I treat in my work on education).
I think that the sense in which I use “subject” is being miscommunicated. I use the term subject, not in the grammatical sense (as opposed to object) but in the more basic sense of not-an-object. I want to say that a thing is not a thing until it is a subject.
As yourself and ockraz have alluded to, there seems to be an opening move to make an argument for causality in order to close the gap you cite between a thing and a subject. However, I only move from thing to subject in order to be more descriptive (answering the “what” in a more rigorous way), not to attempt to move into a reply I cannot give to the question of “Why?”
So a thing is more than a thing because it already is the case. Existing as a thing necessitates subjectivity—the existence as a some-thing and not a no-thing, an object.
Correction: (as opposed to object) should read, (as opposed to predicate), of course.
“That is the million dollar question now isn’t it! For me, I have no answer about the “why;” only the “what.” I do not know “why” some-thing exists instead of no-thing, but I do know that “what” exists is some-thing.”
Sam,
Yet, the “why” is the philosophical question. Philosophically speaking, the “what” always leaves one in some form of “essentialism” unless it is rooted.
Unless you ground your phenomenology, it will always remain arbitrary. This doesn’t mean, necessarily, that it is useless. But it is arbitrary.
The question is: What grounds the entire structure you want to create? What places it outside nothing?
Ben,
“There is something instead of nothing because God Loves. This is the very fabric of creation.”
I believe Sam was speaking of ontology, not theology.
“I want to say that a thing is not a thing until it is a subject.”
But it is a thing. I judge it to be so.
It seems you want to collapse everything into some kind of perceptualism. But then you are already in the realm of essentialism.
“I only move from thing to subject in order to be more descriptive (answering the “what” in a more rigorous way), not to attempt to move into a reply I cannot give to the question of “Why?”
Why not begin with a sound metaphysics and then build your phenomenology on that foundation? Sounds like your creating unnecessary problems for yourself. You can be rigorous and penetrating of phenomenon and yet have it guided by an ontologically grounded logic.
Gerald,
Good points. The move from “Why to “What” is a phenomenological attempt to escape essentialism and begin a more demanding reduction. Whether we take Husserl’s reduction into the things-themselves, Heidegger’s reduction into Being, or Marion’s reduction into givenness, all of those take the world to be the case as the first metaphysical principle (not unlike Wittgenstein in this regard). So, for me, admitting that there is some-thing is indeed to be rooted and avid essentialism that leads us away from the world into an a priori universe we know nothing of.
In other words, to abandon “why” is to attempt more fervently to answers the intuition that gives us that question. Instead of “Quid est?”, we simply ask “est?”
Ha! Avoid not avid.
This might be clearer: a thing is not merely a thing-to-me. Such a thing is most certainly an object—a no-thing, in other words.
Sam,
Are you familiar with the “negative judgment of separation”? It is how one arrives at the “act of being”. It is an “act”, not a thought with content — essentialism. It is not about the what, but existence.
My assumption is that your want to penetrate more deeply into the “concrete”. Is that correct?
“Are you familiar with the “negative judgment of separation”? It is how one arrives at the “act of being”. It is an “act”, not a thought with content — essentialism. It is not about the what, but existence.”
No. however, existence (Dasein) is the “what,” as I understand it. And it (existence) is active, which why constitution is an important question.
“My assumption is that your want to penetrate more deeply into the “concrete”. Is that correct?”
Yes. Depending, of course, on what you mean by “concrete.”
Sam,
I’m not using Heidegger’s language when I refer to existence. I drawing from my Thomistic background. Existence is the “act” that makes something come into being. It is the “to be” of the “what”.
Since the “act” of existing cannot be conceptualized (otherwise it would involve form, or essence, and need a further act to make it “to be”), it can only be arrived at through what is called the “negative judgment of separation.”
Negative theology has some likeness to this procedure.
I understand your interest in “constitution”. If I understand it correctly, I believe we have the same interest. But, from my perspective, “constitution” is still a “what” and a “what” is in the line of essence. … 1) “What is it?” …; and 2) “Is it?” …
But … this is way too abstract, especially since we don’t yet have even the beginnings of a common language. As you post, I’ll keep an eye out for a clue that will allow me to comment further. We’ll see.
Not surprisingly, we come at these things from different playing fields. That is not only fine but great. But I need to understand a little better what your driving at to offer any helpful comments. In the process, I will learn something.
Like you, I have a keen interest in phenomenology. I believe it puts flesh on the bones. But I want to maintain the integrity of the bones too. Both are necessary and, I believe, complimentary.
Gerald, agreed. You are most gracious in providing pressure and, still, giving me room to say more. Like trying to start a fire from scratch. Peace.
“Like trying to start a fire from scratch. Peace.”
After all these years, I’m still not afraid to start from scratch. Peace to you too, and much adventure.
Sam,
I’m not quite sre how it is that you are using subject, but equating existence with dasein cleas things up a little bit.
It is fascinating that Gerald bring in the Aristotealn/Thomistic concept of of existence/actuality in this context. I think it is fundamentally important to note that all things act. However, I’d say that in many important respects that the potential of a being can aid in answering important questions about what it is.
Gerald,
Fascinating that you feel that “God loves” is not an ontological proposition.
Perhaps we should say it this way. Because there is a Being that is pure existence, beings of lesser existence are made possible.
Love is the inexhaustable outflow of the possibility of being from absolute existence. It is the activity of Perfection.
I hate to sound like some old fuddy-duddy, but like everything else under the sun, ontology cannot be understood without the Cross, whose ability to teach us neither begins nor ends with theology.
Ooh, lots of typos.
I’m sorry. Let me know if anything is unclear.
Ben,
I agree with you that philosophy can be perfected by Faith. But the study of “being qua being”, which is ontology, does not lead to “God as Love” or the notion of the “Cross.” Such notions are arrived at only through Faith.
To be sure, these insights bring a new and powerful dimension to human understanding. But they are not arrived at through the agency of the intellect alone. They are revealed to us and, on that ground, we then make use of them as we do.
I’m surprised you would think otherwise.
I suspect then, that I will not be able to participate in the discussion here.
I’m not capable of such thoughts concerning being qua being that do not involve and presuppose the cross, which is ontologically prior to my own small existence such as it is.
I am furthermore congenitally incapable of having or understanding any knowledge which is not dependent upon a prior knowledge of God, however imperfect it is.
My deficient mind cannot even understand well the universe renewed in Christ’s redemption; I have therefore abandonded all hope of the possibility of any intellection whatsoever absent faith.
Gerald,
I’m not so quick to jump to the conclusion that “God is Love” is beyond philosophical speculation, using human reason to arrive at such a conclusion.
Also, Sam, this may be completly off your topic, but the notion of ultimate “thing-ness” can be discovered as “persons loving persons” has been of interest to me.
What if it could be argued that the “meaning” of the “things” of the world is precisely to “speak” this funamental reality: persons loving persons. The sensible world only has meaning if it is “used” to speak human and Divine love. All of it, including our “sensible bodies”.
I’ve wondered if an epistemology can be defended that argues ultimately the most fundamental kind of “knowledge” is “love” – a two-in-one flesh relationship between persons. This sort of “knowledge” would ultimately be the same thing we mean as “faith”. Maybe. lol.
No new ideas here, but its rare when philosophers even speak of love in a clear way. Odd indeed if they don’t and Love is fundamental reality.
Ben,
It may be possible to argue that “the problem of evil” demands a philosophical answer.
This may be stretching the boundaries of traditional philosophy, but could it not possibly be argued that logically there is a need for a “saviour”….?
Certainly, faith in Jesus Christ AS that Savior could not be philosophically demonstrated, but it could be argued he “fulfills” the philosophical necessities that such a savior must possess.
Just wondering…
“It may be possible to argue that “the problem of evil” demands a philosophical answer… This may be stretching the boundaries of traditional philosophy,”
Right- the traditional metaphilosophical position on the nature of philosophy can be seen as excluding theology. There’s no reason why one need take such a narrow view (and good reason not to). Enough is shared by secular philosophy and theology to argue that both are just subsets of philosophy.
B.C.
“I’m not so quick to jump to the conclusion that “God is Love” is beyond philosophical speculation, using human reason to arrive at such a conclusion.”
Where has the view been developed that the proposition ‘God is Love’ can be arrived at through the intellect alone? Who has done so?
Gerald,
With a bit of digging, I think Aquinas actually could be used as an example (Aquinas the philosopher, not the theologian). I think it’s in there. Also, neo-thomistic thinking pushes the ontology of “persons loving persons” as ultimate reality.
I could be wrong, however…lol
Ockraz,
I don’t think i would go as far as you suggest (theology as a mere subset of philosophy), but certainly I think its possible to “push the envelope” on the traditional boundaries of philosophy vs. theology.
B.C.,
Well, I could refer you to a list of NeoThomists who would disagree, including: Gilson, Maritain, Vernon J. Bourke, Joseph Owens, Klubertanz, S.J., Holloway, S.J., W. Norris Clarke, S.J., Henri Renard, S.J., and Bernard J. Longergan, S.J.
Now if you are saying that reason can be informed by Faith and then proceed to reason beyond what it is naturally capable of doing, I would agree. In fact, I use that kind of reasoning in my own work to enrich our understanding of the causal dynamics of human behavior.
Perhaps we have no disagreement at all.
Maybe we are saying something similar.
B.C.,
I wouldn’t argue that my approach is somehow ‘right’ or ‘correct’, but I think that it can be useful. There isn’t much consensus on metaphilosophcial issues. (I think that it is kind of exciting.)
Do you think that if you were training someone that the ‘skills’ you’d want to impart to them would be substantially different if they were going into theology rather than traditional philosophy?
I think it is at least fun to think about :)
Gerald,
Actually, I won’t go so far as saying “disagreement”, but, no, I am not stating the traditional (and valid) “faith informing reason”.
I am wondering if the “limits” we put upon human reason (and there ARE limits), have been too narrow in the past.
It does get back to what Sam began here in the first place. Ontology (and epistemology).
We are asking about a coherent, reasonable explaination of “thing-ness”. If i read you corrrectly above, responding to Sam, I agree that phenomenology in itself will fail to give an answer, that there are the “bones” of ontology that phenomenology can put some meat on…
I guess it’s too easy for me to fall into “ambiguity” over some of the concepts here (I’m not a professional philosopher), but if “love” (an ambiguous word in itself) is ultimate reality, cannot human reason arrive that that fundamental truth about “the world”…?
Ockraz,
Indeed, it is fun to think about all of this…lol
And vital…
Glad to see that this thread is still proving to be of interest to you all. The issues of and between philosophy and theology reminds me to continue my ongoing series on Jean-Luc Marion who’s thought is central to this classic question, I think.
B.C.,
I see better what you are saying. I think. I’ve been writing more from the vantage point of the history of philosophy rather than as a philosopher.
Let me start anew. We have these “philosophical silos” that we learn about in the university which, in many respects, are akin to bureaucratic silos. You have the Thomists (and they don’t all agree), the empiricists, the phenomenologists, etc. In most respects, no one talks to the other. Each are like billiard balls on a table, to draw upon Hume’s metaphor.
I’ve struggled against this predicament all my life, trying to be as logical as possible but still trying to put some “concreteness” and “flavor” into my ideas. (The “bones” and the “meat”.) I’ve never felt comfortable with things separated out. I wanted to mix sugar, flour, salt, flavor, and water and bake a cake.
Love is one of those phenomena that has intrigued and moved me from a philosophical perspective for a very long time. I haven’t had the time to development my thoughts on this but I always come back to questions about Love. (At this point, I’m not speaking from, or being controlled by, any silo.). Love is such a compelling force that what you say about it, or experience of it, leaves too much of a lasting impression to ignore.
You ask: Have we been too limiting in our categories? Perhaps yes.
Let me give a little example of how I proceed. If you read American literature, or existential literature and philosophy, you run headlong into the notion of alienation. Picasso painted 10,000 images of alienation. Stravinsky and other modern composers are preoccupied with alienation. Edward Munch painted The Scream which is a depiction of alienation.
Now, go from there to this question. Why is alienation such a repelling notion? Why is Munch’s painting called The Scream? Why don’t we embrace alienation and seek more of it in our lives?
What I’m asking here is a philosophical question? Why is alienation “some-thing” that is contrary to the fundamental inclination of the human spirit? Why do we struggle to expunge alienation from our lives? We don’t seek and embrace it knowingly? We do we struggle to alleviate it, to reconcile it.
Now, let’s say that this question — Why does the rejection of Spiritual Alienation stem from the depths of our being? — is the beginning point of a new philosophy? From there we seek an answer that is even more fundamental than alienation itself.
The answer is this: We reject Alienation because our entire being is a “Crying Out For Love.” ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT OF SPIRITUAL ALIENATION IS A REASON WHY WE REJECT SPIRITUAL ALIENATION. THIS IS THAT WE ARE MADE FOR LOVE.
Thus we have the two poles of our existence: Alienation and Love. WE ARE BORN ALIENATED AND WE STRUGGLE FOR LOVE. This is the universal struggle of every person. It is THE struggle of the person that is most fundamental.
Life then becomes a dialectical movement towards Love and this dialectical movement is manifest in every aspect of our Existence. Design and play with the concepts as you will. But this is the central meaning of our existence.
It is from this perspective that I have been trying to articulate the root cause and the causal dynamics of dysfunctional behavior, i.e., substance abuse, homelessness, youth violence, etc.
Gerald,
Really well put ! Thank you. Much “meat” there..(and bones..) lol
BC,
Yeah, meat and bones! Are you up for dinner!!!
Take the sections of Balthazar’s Glory of the Lord: The Aesthetics, The Dramatic, and The Logic as a model. What is need to treat alienation and love as an aesthetic, that is enriched with drama, and that is guided by Logic. How’s that for a life’s project? Any young ones around?????
For my part, I think these themes can be developed using a language that fits nicely within the context of a secular society such as the U.S. The idea, as I see it, is to enrich the ideas that shape our culture so that they can be reconciled with more a more profound understanding of the human spirit. We should not try to destroy what we have in America but enrich what we have. This is the struggle for “hearts and minds” that I often refer to.
I’ll be saying more about this as I add to my series on the Spirituality of Youth Violence. This is where I am driving. Here is a link to Part III, with Parts I and II linked at the end:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/23/the-spirituality-of-youth-violence-iii/