The Structure of Wholeness
Using a part-whole-calculus the vague concept of wholeness is rendered precisely as the structure of an atomic boolean lattice. The so-defined prototypical structure of wholeness has the status of a category, since every element of our experience may be considered as an intended application of it. This will be illustrated using examples from different ontological spheres. The hypothetical and therefore fallible character of the structure is shown in its inadequacy in grasping quantum logical facts. This demands a differentiation of wholeness. The defined structure may be seen as circular in two respects: On the one hand it is the precondition for the understanding of its own syntactic and semantic basics, on the other hand there exists a mutual defineability between its atoms, which leads us to the thesis that wholeness cannot be defined in a non-circular manner.
Introduction
In this paper I attempt both to explicate the popular, but vague notion of wholeness and to point out its meaning for ontology. To begin with, I’ll give a brief survey of the essentials: In accord with an elementary intuition of ‘wholeness’ I introduce an implicit axiomatic definition of its structure, which proves to be a familiar Boolean-lattice. This internal view of the concept of wholeness is followed by a more philosophical external view, which looks at the structure in its context. It will be shown that the structure corresponds to the criteria of an ontological category, namely consistence, adequacy, content and coherence, so that we are justified in speaking of the ‘category of wholeness’. This feature leads to some interesting results: As a consequence of the adequacy of a category the structure turns out to be a model on its own. The self-application leads on the level of the axioms to the boolean lattice of all substructures and on the level of the terms of axioms to semantical boolean lattices, which may seen as basic units for the whole language. Thus the understanding of the structure of ‘wholeness’ takes for granted that there is a pre-understanding of the very same. Furthermore, there is another kind of circular understanding on the level of the atoms of the structure, because there exists a mutual defineability between the atoms, which cannot be eliminated without leaving the wholeness. But even if we try to leave it, we enter another wholeness, so that circularity is inevitable in the end.
A. Intuition
First of all, let me describe the leading intuition of ‘wholeness’.
In addition to, revolutionizing characters, Stan Lee made many of his comic books intricate and interesting compared to simple boring comic books in the past. His intricate comics had to do with his...
Okrent, Daniel. "Prohibition Life: Politics, Loopholes And Bathtub Gin." NPR. NPR, 2010. Web. Feb. 2014.
Meredith, William A. "Prohibition: The Great Experiment." Prohibition: The Great Experiment. The University at Albany, 29 Apr. 2005. Web. 21 Nov. 2013.
There is perhaps no idea in the history of western ontology with a more powerful legacy than Aristotle’s conception of ousia. Traditionally construed, "ousia" stands for the primary, foundational principle of being. It can be said that ontology has historically been ousiology – the search for ultimate foundations. In this quest for ultimates, the ousia names the absolute arche, the foundational principle that reigns over and orders all being. The political tone of this formulation is intentional; it is designed to frame the ontological question concerning the meaning of ousia in ethico-political terms. The impetus behind this strategy is to suggest that western ontology has been largely determined by an authoritarian tendency that seeks to establish a single ultimate principle in order to secure a firm and certain foundation. On the one hand, this authoritarian tendency may be traced back to Aristotle, for ousia is precisely such a hegemonic principle; on the other hand, Aristotle also suggests another conception of ousia, one that can be drawn upon in the attempt to resist this authoritarian tendency. In what follows, I trace both the authoritarian and this resistant conception ousia in Aristotle.
During the late 19th century and early 20th century the United States saw many political reforms that would bring the nation back into a positive and moral state after a bloody civil war tore the country apart. It is said that the average American over the age of 15 during the time prior Prohibition drank almost seven gallons of pure alcohol a year. Prohibition was a period of time in which the average citizen broke the law because alcohol was a major part of citizens’ lives and the restrictions on the sale, transportation, and manufacturing of alcoholic beverages illegal. The urbanized North and Midwest were against Prohibition and the rural West and South supported the ban of alcohol. Even though that the issue of Prohibition was a regional issue across the nation, there were supporters and anti-Prohibitionists in each state.
This paper discusses how cosmology and how philosophy can be connected to one another. In order to explain this reason, the paper is broken down into three subtitles which are: metaphysics, religion, and ontology. Each part connects to cosmology in one term or another. In each subtopic, it will discuss the topic, its background in the philosophical review. As a result, in the conclusion, it will discuss how cosmology compares to them all.
For the purpose of this essay an argument shall be considered convincing if it would make a reasonable person with no prior opinion on the matter believe it. Further, this essay must establish a definition of ontological so as to differentiate between ontological and other forms of argument for the existence of God. As such, this essay will consider an argument to be “ontological” if the proponents the argument consider it that . However, one potential exception to this rule must be made for Leftow’s modal argument which must be considered an ontological argument despite Leftow consciously avoiding this term. This is because it is similar enough to other modal forms of ontological arguments like Plantinga’s.
Firstly, I shall expound the verification principle. I shall then show that its condition of significant types is inexhaustible, and that this makes the principle inapplicable. In doing so, I shall have exposed serious inconsistencies in Ayer's theory of meaning, which is a necessary part of his modified verification principle.
It was apparent that Prohibition didn’t achieve its goals, instead, it added to the existing economic and social problems, as well as creating new problems that would be prominent in today’s society. Organized crime grew into an empire, disrespect for the law grew, the per capita consumption of alcohol increased dramatically, city officials fell to gangsters, and the government lost money. It is obvious that prohibition was a miserable failure from all points of view. Reasonable measures were not taken to enforce the laws, so they were practically ignored.
Ontology is a philosophy assumption which deals with the reality of the study and the understanding of appearance and existence (McClean, 2012)..
Russell’s Theory of Definite Description has totally changed the way we view definite descriptions by solving the three logical paradoxes. It is undeniable that the theory itself is not yet perfect and there can be objections on this theory. Still, until now, Russell’s theory is the most logical explanation of definite description’s role.
Certain statements made by Pope John Paul II in his commentary on the lasting significance of the papal encyclical “Rerum Novarum,” resonate in a highly spiritual plane, others a highly earthly one, and others in both at once. I would posit that this integrated place is of utmost significance to a sound doctrine of social justice in society, with which both documents are highly concerned. The current pope most clearly states the intertwining of the spiritual and physical needs of the human being when he says that “the Church's social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization ” and “reveals man to himself” (John Paul II, 78). Like Pope John Paul II, I understand the social doctrine of the Church as more than an opportunity to show others how good God is and how much they need the spiritual salvation that comes from this same God's goodness. I believe in God's goodness, God is content to care for God's created and beloved children through fostering the practice of justice and peace as integral threads in the tapestry of all ...
fence or a locked door, but as distinct and scary as the high walls, thick bars
The Deductive-Nomological (D-N) Model gives an account of explanation through its basic form, the Covering Law Model. The D-N Model asks the basic question “What is a scientific explanation?” The aim of this paper is to answer that question and further develop the definition of an explanation by problematizing the D-N Model’s account of explanation, providing a solution to one of those problems, and then further problematizing that solution. By examining the details of an example that the D-N Model explains well, we can see why this model was popular in the first place before describing two of its major problems. Then, by looking at Wesley Salmon’s account of scientific explanation, we can see just how problematic the flaws in the D-N Model
Talcott Parson and Robert Merton are the central tenets of structural-functionalist. According to Calhoun “Functionalism (sometime called “structural –functionalism’) refers to the body of theory first developed in the 1930s and 1940s that treats society as a set of interdependent system. Theory rest on an organic analogy that likens a social system to a physical body, in which each subsystem is necessary to maintain the proper functioning of the entire organism. From a functionalist point of view, the key to understanding a social subsystem is thus to trace its function in the working of the whole.”(calhoun489) Structural functional theory describes society to be a complex system with various interdependent parts that work together to maintain stability. Each part of society has each of which have their own functions and work hand in hand to maintain social stability in the world.