37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + + + + +
→"Philosophizing" addition: respond to Bert
And so with other sub-disciplines of philosophy, I think, though I haven't thought them all through.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
And so with other sub-disciplines of philosophy, I think, though I haven't thought them all through.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 00:07, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
: OK. Why do you think that we become aware of the meaning of being by its approaching absence? It seems to me that we become aware of the meaning of being rather by its overwhelming presence; we find ourselves in a world filled with things, and begin to make distinctions between them that have nothing to do with an understanding (even a protounderstanding) of death, or cessation, or anything of the sort.
I also fail to see how the properties of God are relevant to the philosophical investigation of ontology; that belongs squarely in philosophy of religion. The ontology of artifacts, for example, will turn out to be the same whether God exists or not.
Finally, I fail to see why this argument is appropriate for an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with the demonstrable history of philosophical inquiry. Unless you'd like to re-frame it as, say, a Kierkegaardian claim, or something similar. [[User:NosnhoJE|NosnhoJE]] 16:37, 4 June 2008 (EDT)