Philosophy throughout history has been considering the question of the ontological status of consciousness. Traditionally regarded by some as part of the main branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions as to what entities exist or are said to "be", and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. This is how their ontological status is determined.
Another branch of philosophy is ethics. How does it relate to the topic of the article? The fact is that ethics and ontology have common ground - for example, in questions of how to restore the ontological status of ethics.
Existence status
Some philosophers, especially in the tradition of the Platonic school, argue that all nouns (including abstract nouns) refer to existing entities. Other philosophers argue that nouns do not always name entities, but some provide a kind of shorthand for referring to a group of objects orevents. In this last point of view, mind, instead of referring to essence, refers to the totality of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of people with some common characteristics, while geometry refers to a collection of specific intellectual activities. Between these poles of realism and nominalism there are various other positions that determine, among other things, the ontological status of consciousness.
Besides, ancient philosophers were also lawyers, naturalists, and chemists. Therefore, within the framework of ontology, they considered, among other things, such issues as the ontological status of law. Let's explore these questions.
Ontological status of fact
An offer is objective (i.e. factual) if it is useful to others, regardless of you as the observer. A proposal is subjective (that is, based on opinion) if it depends on you as an observer.
Scientific facts are facts that apply to the natural world. For example, "I wear white socks" can be a scientific fact, whether or not the statement is supported by repeated careful observation or measurement. Likewise, "I love chocolate ice cream" is a fact that can be stored in a demographic database.
On the contrary, "chocolate ice cream tastes good" is an opinion. "Good taste" is not inherent in chocolate ice cream and depends on your perception as an observer.
Factual statements are acts of intent. The quality of concrete facts depends on the absenceintentions to deceive and from reliability. Independent verification can improve the reliability and therefore the quality of the facts.
Fact definitions
Standard/conventional definitions of "fact" typically include a degenerate circular reference to "truth" (Definitions of Fact - OneLook Dictionary Lookup, Definitions of Truth - Lookup OneLook Dictionary); that is, "facts" are sentences that are true, and "truth" are sentences that are factual. Whatever the opinion of a person, the ontological status of a fact remains stable.
Because being "objective" is a clear act of intent, your ability to be "really objective" especially depends on your ability to completely get rid of dependence on the usefulness of your objective judgments. If others find your objective proposals useful without your participation as an observer, then for these people your objective proposals are indeed objective.
Ontology and transcendence
As a potential fourth meaning of "truth", it is possible that some people (i.e. prophets) have magical, transcendent abilities to discern truths about reality; that is, the ability to remove all illusions and delusions from one's view of the natural world. For such people, facts may be more than just an act of intent. Unfortunately, you must have the ability to judge them.
Speaking about the ontological status of mathematical objects, it is worth noting that in the "absolute abstraction" of mathematics, "truth" is notare neither subjective nor objective; they are simply theoretical: either stated and tautological, as in axioms and theorems, devoid of factual significance, or stated and assumed, or generally accepted, as in definitions, again leading to tautology in interpretation and application.
Ontological status of space and time
Having studied the basics of special relativity and denounced the neo-Lorentzian approach to time, one can understand that the nonsensical theory of time is the best representative model of this proof. At the same time, from this point of view, the events of history themselves are just as real and just as significant as this discussion. The assassination of John F. Kennedy is as real as the opening speech of the 45th President of the United States. The ontological status of a person is just as real.
From a physical point of view, if we assume that reality exists as it is perceived, then all events that you perceive from the outside world (i.e. do not originate from your own mind) are necessarily past events because the maximum speed at which information can travel is the speed of light. This might seem like an inappropriate interjection, but that's simply because at the time you perceive the event, that exact event is no longer happening and thus is no longer "real" in tension. From the point of view of ontology, past events exist in the same way as present ones; They existsimply as points in time on a [perceived] linear timeline, not as a physical object, but as concepts used to describe the temporal nature of things at a given point.
Ontology of time
What else can be said about the ontological status of time and space? In the philosophical discussion concerning the ontology of time, two different issues are usually distinguished. Is time an entity in its own right, or should it rather be seen as the totality of relationships of succession, simultaneity, and duration that arise between fundamental entities called events or processes? Are the temporal relationships that arise between two events (in the case of simultaneity and succession) or four events (in the case of duration) due to an inertial frame of reference, or are they maintained independently of any such frame of reference?
For the sake of clarity, time, consisting only of sequences, simultaneities, and durations, should be called relative, in contrast to anti-relational or substantive time, conceived as an independently existing entity. On the other hand, time that depends on the inertial frame of reference will be called relativistic, and time that does not depend on it should be called absolute. This terminology is proposed by faute de mieux, although it conflicts with other terminologies used in the discussion of time. But the difference mentioned in the proposed terminology is really independent of this terminology. Several historicalexamples can clarify this difference.
Artworks
The discussion about the ontological status of art can be summed up by the question of whether works of art are substances or qualities. Substance is that which exists within and through itself. For example, a cat is a substance in the sense that it is not a quality of anything else and exists by itself as a separate entity. On the contrary, the black, gray, orange and brown colors of the Tabby fur are a quality because it does not have an independent existence. In the debate about fictions, the question is whether fictions exist independently, whether they are substances in themselves, or whether they are always and only qualities of other objects. For example, we could say that fictions can only exist in the mind, in which case they would be qualities and not substances. The status of works of art largely depends on the ontological status of consciousness.
Four recent turns (realist, process, holistic and reflective) in social thought are discussed, related to the four-dimensional scheme of dialectical realism that the author recently outlined. It is shown how ontology is important and indeed not only necessary, but also inevitable. The nature of the reality of ideas (of different types) is shown and the most common mistakes in the metatheory of ideas are analyzed. It then discusses the meaning of categorical realism and the nature of these specific types if the ideas are known as "ideologies". Finally, there are somegood and bad dialectical connections of ideas and related phenomena. Thus, the ontological status of religion depends on the thinking of the observer (human). No matter how one thinks, but such phenomena as religiosity, ideas and imagination, apparently have common roots.
Biology
When touching on the topic of the ontological status of he alth, we inevitably come across the problem of the similar status of biological species. The reference to the problem of species may seem strange and vaguely anachronistic today. The problem of species may have had some significance long ago in the philosophical debate between nominalists and essentialists, or a century ago in biology when Darwin presented his theory of organic evolution, but it is certainly of no contemporary interest. But "species" such as the terms "gene", "electron", "non-local simultaneity" and "element" are theoretical terms included in significant scientific theory. The nature of the physical elements was once an important problem in physics. The transition from elements defined in terms of common attributes to specific density, molecular weight and atomic number was important for the development of the theory of the atom. The transition in biology from genes defined in terms of single traits to the production of enzymes, to coding for specific polypeptides, to structurally defined nucleic acid segments, has been equally important to the growth of modern genetics. A similar transition occurs with respect to the concept of view, and is no less important.
Ontologyinformation
Although the incorporation of the theoretical concepts of information into (quantum) physics has shown tremendous success in recent years, the ontology of information remains a mystery. Therefore, this thesis is intended to contribute to the discussion about the ontological status of information in physics. Most of the recent debate has focused on syntactic information measures and especially Shannon information, a concept that originally emerged from communication theory. This thesis includes another syntactic information measure, the hitherto largely underrepresented notion of "algorithmic information" or "Kolmogorov complexity", a concept frequently applied in computer science. Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity are related by coding theory and have similar characteristics. By comparing Shannon information and Kolmogorov complexity, a structure is developed that analyzes the corresponding information measures in relation to uncertainty and semantic information. In addition, this framework examines whether information can be considered as an essential entity and examines the extent to which information is generally accepted. The ontological status of technology, nature, being and, in general, everything that is related to our reality depends on this.
It turns out that in the classical case Shannon's information and Kolmogorov's complexity are both abstract and very conditional entities that should not be confused with uncertainty and not related to semantic information. Almost the same results were obtained inquantum case, except for a high degree of conventionality; it is argued that quantum theory limits the conventional choice of those who wish to use any theory.
Translation ontology
Translation has long been on the fringes of the study of literature, although its meaning has changed radically over the past four decades. Despite its considerable importance as an intercultural activity, fields such as literary criticism and theory, the various histories of national literatures, and even comparative literature often consider translation to be something quite ancillary to their interests. The main reason for this omission or indifference is the traditional perception of translation as a necessary evil. Translation can be seen as a strategy that attempts to ease the constraints that humanity faces by trying to make contact with people belonging to other linguistic communities and their cultural heritage transmitted through the written word. At the same time, it also serves as a way of reminding us, so to speak, of the imperfection of human nature and the vanity of trying to overcome the curse of Babylon. This question may seem trivial, as does the ontological status of design, This perception implies an important paradox. He gives literary works, in particular, the great works that constitute canonized literature, which are allegedly presented as models worthy of imitation, of the dubious honor of being inimitable, not to mention unique. This has led to iterative and indiscriminatecomparisons between the originals and their translations to compare differences and thus reveal what has been lost in the inevitable but also painful cross-linguistic transformation. From this point of view, the custom of prematurely (and therefore unreasonably) considering that any work is superior to its translation is not surprising.
Although the study of translation is one of the most effective tools for analyzing interreligious contacts, until recently even comparatists have been unable or unwilling to give translation the recognition it deserves as a major driving force in the development of literature. The fact that translations have a derivative or a second character cannot be denied, since they logically require the presence of a previously written text in another language, but it is not necessary to make the term "second" synonymous with "secondary". The same question inevitably emerges when considering the ontological status of social reality.
Translations are often stigmatized as secondary works because of their limited lifespan, as all the cultural and linguistic changes to be expected in any literary system throughout its existence are detrimental to them. These changes determine the need to provide readers with versions of previous versions that are ideologically and aesthetically consistent with the new times. Generally, the title of the original, as the word implies, is given to the specific and exclusive expression of a particular author, although it is also a copy of the reality or the reality that he/she imagines. Andon the contrary, translation is seen as a copy of a copy, a simulacrum, an imitation or interpretation of something tangible and true.
What is the status of the transfer
Nevertheless, although a translation is certainly a reproduction of the original, there is no need to single it out in favor of the latter, whose only merit is often its predecessor in time. Indeed, as has sometimes been noted, many arts involve reproduction in their performance (consider, for example, acts of interpretation on stage or in musical performances). In fact, translations provide a genuine interpretive function, as later versions of the same work break new ground and are often updated after rereading.
It is likely that the assumption that each original text must by its nature necessarily surpass its translation (both ontologically and qualitatively) is reinforced in Romanticism with the sublimation of creativity, individualism and originality. However, much earlier we can find numerous reports that do not talk about parity. This premature, evaluative and normative concept, born of a tradition inevitably oriented towards the original pole, has been systematically questioned in recent years by various post-structuralist theorists who have devoted themselves to rethinking the concept of originality. This point of view argues that a foreign text is not self-sufficient and independent, but will, from a metaphorical point of view, be on its own.translation, which is the result of the author's processing of the meaning, concept, emotions.
History of ontology
Ontology has been an aspect of the Samkhya school of thought since the first millennium BC. The concept of Guna, which describes the three properties (sattva, rajas and tamas) present in varying proportions in all things that exist, is a prominent concept of this school.
Parmenides was one of the first in the Greek tradition to offer an ontological characterization of the fundamental nature of existence. In his prologue or proem he describes two views of existence; Initially, nothing comes from nothing, and therefore existence is eternal. Therefore, our opinions about truth must often be false and deceitful. Much of Western philosophy - including the fundamental concepts of falsifiability - has emerged from this view. This means that existence is that which can be conceived by thought, created or possessed. Therefore, there can be neither emptiness nor vacuum; and true reality can neither appear nor disappear from existence. Rather, the fullness of creation is eternal, homogeneous and unchanging, although not infinite (he characterized its form as that of a perfect sphere). Parmenides thus argues that the change perceived in everyday life is illusory. Everything that can be perceived is only one part of a single entity. This idea somewhat anticipates the modern concept of a final grand unified theory, which ultimately describes all of existence in terms of one interconnected subatomica reality that applies to everything.
Monism and Being
The opposite of eleatic monism is the pluralistic conception of Being. In the 5th century B. C., Anaxagoras and Leucippus replaced the reality of Being (unique and unchanging) with the reality of Becoming, and thus with a more fundamental and elementary ontic plurality. This thesis originated in the Hellenic world, expounded by Anaxagoras and Leucippus in two different ways. The first theory de alt with the "seeds" (which Aristotle called "homeomeria") of various substances. The second was the atomistic theory, which de alt with a reality based on vacuum, atoms and their internal movement in it. Modern monists often study the ontological status of virtual particles.
Atomism
The materialistic atomism proposed by Leucippus was vague, but then developed by Democritus in a deterministic way. Later (4th century BC) Epicurus again perceived the original atomism as indeterministic. He confirmed reality as being composed of an infinity of indivisible, unchanging corpuscles or atoms (atomon, lit. "uncut"), but he gives weight to characterize atoms, while for Leucippus they are characterized by "figure", "order" and "position" in space. In addition, they create a whole with internal movement in a vacuum, creating a diverse flow of being. Their movement is influenced by parenclisis (Lucretius calls it clinamen) and this is determined by chance. These ideas foreshadowed our understandingtraditional physics until the nature of atoms was discovered in the 20th century. Given the peculiarities of mathematical knowledge, the ontological status of mathematical objects is still not fully understood.
