Tags:
Try as I might, I have never been able to master the term 'ontology' in such a way as to use it myself credibly. Do you have suggestions for remedying this lack or am I better off being ignorant?
OK, but whom do you blame for the ontology plague, since Castro, Strathern and Latour rode a wave they did not originate? Heidegger? But then why should that old Nazi be in vogue? Maybe because he was good. After I got through the wording, I found some strong stuff in his late metaphysics, so maybe I am not a hopeless case.
Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the properties of that domain, and may be used to define the domain. In theory, an ontology is a "formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation".[1] An ontology provides a shared vocabulary, which can be used to model a domain — that is, the type of objects and/or concepts that exist, and their properties and relations.[2]
Ontologies are used in artificial intelligence, the Semantic Web, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library science, and information architecture as a form of knowledge representation about the world or some part of it.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the properties of that domain, and may be used to define the domain. In theory, an ontology is a "formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation".[1] An ontology provides a shared vocabulary, which can be used to model a domain — that is, the type of objects and/or concepts that exist, and their properties and relations.[2]
Ontologies are used in artificial intelligence, the Semantic Web, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library science, and information architecture as a form of knowledge representation about the world or some part of it.
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between those concepts. It is used to reason about the properties of that domain, and may be used to define the domain. In theory, an ontology is a "formal, explicit specification of a shared conceptualisation".[1] An ontology provides a shared vocabulary, which can be used to model a domain — that is, the type of objects and/or concepts that exist, and their properties and relations.[2] Ontologies are used in artificial intelligence, the Semantic Web, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library science, and information architecture as a form of knowledge representation about the world or some part of it.
What the Amazonian perspectivists (Castro et al.) and the New Melanesian Ethnography are reaching for is a comparative ontology that explores 'what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences' in an Amazonian or Melanesian relativist frame.
Maybe relativist is a peculiar label for arguments that usually proceed on the binary basis of us vs them. It is not accidental (as the Stalinists used to say) that the two areas epitomize for some the primitive object of an anthropology that has mainly lost that focus in most places. We have plural cultures and singular nature, they the opposite. We have commodities, they have gifts. The two schools you identify flourish in western academia, but are highly contested as being abstract, ahistorical and overgeneralized, especially in Papua New Guinea/Australia and Brazil/Ecuador.
Latour has joined both Strathern and Viveiros de Castro as a way of articulating his own fight with French big think sociology. Since abandoning ANT and Callon, he has taken up the label 'pragmatism' for this opposition of late, building bridges to the American pragmatists and attacking the Durkheimians through Tarde. His drift over the years has been systematic, but the labels change. The same with Strathern. So I guess my query is what is gained by making this hinge on 'ontology' and how is it 'relativist' compared say with Simmel's use of the term?
Huon Wardle said:What the Amazonian perspectivists (Castro et al.) and the New Melanesian Ethnography are reaching for is a comparative ontology that explores 'what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences' in an Amazonian or Melanesian relativist frame.
'Monism leads on to dualism or to pluralism, but they again create a desire for unity.' (Simmel).
Keith Hart said:Maybe relativist is a peculiar label for arguments that usually proceed on the binary basis of us vs them. It is not accidental (as the Stalinists used to say) that the two areas epitomize for some the primitive object of an anthropology that has mainly lost that focus in most places. We have plural cultures and singular nature, they the opposite. We have commodities, they have gifts. The two schools you identify flourish in western academia, but are highly contested as being abstract, ahistorical and overgeneralized, especially in Papua New Guinea/Australia and Brazil/Ecuador.
Latour has joined both Strathern and Viveiros de Castro as a way of articulating his own fight with French big think sociology. Since abandoning ANT and Callon, he has taken up the label 'pragmatism' for this opposition of late, building bridges to the American pragmatists and attacking the Durkheimians through Tarde. His drift over the years has been systematic, but the labels change. The same with Strathern. So I guess my query is what is gained by making this hinge on 'ontology' and how is it 'relativist' compared say with Simmel's use of the term?
Huon Wardle said:What the Amazonian perspectivists (Castro et al.) and the New Melanesian Ethnography are reaching for is a comparative ontology that explores 'what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences' in an Amazonian or Melanesian relativist frame.
Is this an example of the maxim that metaphysics leads inevitably to mysticism?
Huon Wardle said:'Monism leads on to dualism or to pluralism, but they again create a desire for unity.' (Simmel).
Keith Hart said:Maybe relativist is a peculiar label for arguments that usually proceed on the binary basis of us vs them. It is not accidental (as the Stalinists used to say) that the two areas epitomize for some the primitive object of an anthropology that has mainly lost that focus in most places. We have plural cultures and singular nature, they the opposite. We have commodities, they have gifts. The two schools you identify flourish in western academia, but are highly contested as being abstract, ahistorical and overgeneralized, especially in Papua New Guinea/Australia and Brazil/Ecuador.
Latour has joined both Strathern and Viveiros de Castro as a way of articulating his own fight with French big think sociology. Since abandoning ANT and Callon, he has taken up the label 'pragmatism' for this opposition of late, building bridges to the American pragmatists and attacking the Durkheimians through Tarde. His drift over the years has been systematic, but the labels change. The same with Strathern. So I guess my query is what is gained by making this hinge on 'ontology' and how is it 'relativist' compared say with Simmel's use of the term?
Huon Wardle said:What the Amazonian perspectivists (Castro et al.) and the New Melanesian Ethnography are reaching for is a comparative ontology that explores 'what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences' in an Amazonian or Melanesian relativist frame.
Welcome to
Open Anthropology Cooperative
© 2019 Created by Keith Hart.
Powered by