[Humanist] 29.431 ontologizing

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Thu Oct 29 07:19:14 CET 2015


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 29, No. 431.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:42:45 +0100
        From: Øyvind_Eide <lister at oeide.no>
        Subject: Re:  29.426 ontologizing?
        In-Reply-To: <20151027064617.CA4718E5 at digitalhumanities.org>


27. okt. 2015 kl. 07:46 skrev Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>:

>                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 29, No. 426.
>            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> 
> 
> 
>        Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 06:30:02 +0000
>        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>        Subject: ontologizing
> 
> In pursuit of wisdom about wisdom literature (proverbs, parables and the 
> like) I ran into Gary Saul Morson's The Long and Short of It: From 
> Aphorism to Novel (Stanford, 2012). It itself offers two sorts of wisdom 
> to the computationally fascinated: an antidote, if you will, to one 
> current obsession and a booster to another. The first is demonstration 
> of the rewards from studying Small Data; second is its encouragement to 
> play seriously with schemes of what might be. Morson's Introduction, in 
> which he discusses the many ways of sorting the forms of aphoristic 
> literature, implies that the second made the first possible. Anyhow 
> here's the paragraph which urged me to write this note:
> 
>> Like arguments over terminology, classification debates may seem
>> pointless, and yet, as thinkers from Aristotle to Linnaeus and Darwin
>> have understood, one can often best understand a range of phenomena
>> by first examining its types. If nomenclature proves less than
>> helpful in doing so and the phenomena lend themselves to different
>> groupings, one needs to reflect on why one is interested in the
>> phenomena in the first place. Articulating the questions one hopes to
>> answer also helps. Only by deciding on the sort of thing one is
>> looking for can one hope to find it. There is no single correct way
>> of classifying genres. Rather, principles of classification properly
>> depend on the reasons for classifying. Different purposes demand
>> different classifications. (pp. 4-5)
> 
> Perhaps as "ontology" has among us given way to "ontologies" so it in 
> turn should be given the means to metamorphose into "ontologizing”?

Dear Willard,

We already use the terms ‘ontological analysis’ and ‘conceptual modelling’. Maybe that covers more or less the same as ‘ontologizing’?

All the best,

Øyvind





More information about the Humanist mailing list