On the Beauty of Ontology

This text is incomplete. However, it will remain unfinished for a time, and so I've uploaded it.

On the beauty of the ontological argument.

It is the case that in mathematics, the term **beauty is applied to the truth, by way of disregarding theories that do not stand within the bounds of what is considered beautiful. This was, an unspoken rule in Philosophy for a time, for we witness it in all of the earliest philosophical texts of the world – these are written in such a way as to engender flow; to borrow a Daoist definition, whether intentionally or unintentionally. So, here I seek to apply the same method, the same tempering, in order to argue at the very least for the beauty, or harmony, of the ontological argument as a means of establishing an empistemology.

Now, it is often the case that the topic of God, from Aristotlean to Christian, is used as a means of either attacking or defending the ontological argument. Even if you check with our dearest Lord Wikipedia, the very description should have you reeling – 'An ontological argument is any one of a category of philosophical arguments for the existence of God using ontology.' Daoists do not believe in any God of our Western description. They yet remain with possibly one of the most profound series of arguments of the ontology of the universe. With a correct understanding of ontology, one can see how, through the beauty or holism the universe portrays of itself, one could come to the conclusion of God. When understanding the beauty also, one can see how one could become ensconced in such an idea. I am not here to argue for the existence of God – however, I do not sit in the camp of those who claim that such a thing is completely unknowable.

So, epistemology then. What are the foundations of an epistemology? An understanding of the thing itself. What the thing is, rather than what it appears or portrays itself as. Is it not true that due to time, all things change? The body decomposes, the water evaporates, the star becomes supernova. And is it also fair to say that the changes from one form, give rise to the conditions of the next form? If this is not the case, then we must throw out the entirety of evolutionary study. With these two understandings, we must come back to the topic at hand; the foundations of an epistemology. If one cannot know a thing from the forms that gave rise to the thing we witness, then one does not have a solid foundation of understanding of the thing at all, does one? If you were to hire a computer technician, and he claimed to understand a particular form of computer, but could not tell you how a computer was built, and how in turn those parts were built, he may still have the understanding of the computer he claimed, but he does not understand the thing-in-itself.

I argue that without knowledge of the thing-in-itself, a most inner as well as outer understanding, one cannot say they have earnestly attempted to understand a thing.


QR Code
QR Code on_the_beauty_of_ontology (generated for current page)