Ontology

[polyglotbyron6]

Hi, all!

I asked a question earlier about comprehension and extension. While the respondent's answer satisfied me for the purposes of the question (thanks again!), nevertheless, I feel that intellectual integrity demands that I get to the bottom of the issue. Besides, my siblings still aren't satisfied. Any comments are welcome.

Comprehension is 'the fully articulated sum of notes, or intelligible aspects, of a concept.'

Now, we use the porphyrian tree to help us articulate these notes of a concept.

Using the porphyrian tree, we get the following comprehension for 'horse'

a non-rational, sentient, living, material substance.

But, in its essentials, a horse is more than this. For instance, speaking biologically, a horse is a creature who has a certain DNA sequence which differentiates it from, say a donkey; indeed, this sequence ensures that an unborn horse comes out as a horse. As an essential of horse, DNA is something without which a horse would not be a horse.

so, how is 'non-rational, sentient, living, material substance' the COMPLETE articulation of intelligible aspects of the concept horse, since it doesn't make mention of other essentials of a horse, such as DNA?

I think I know the answer, but I believe that 'in the multitude of counsellors there is safety'. So any comments would much appreciated. Also, I ask the moderators to bear with me and forgive me if I am being tedious.

I am thinking that comprehension is the fully articulated sum of ontological essentials. The key lies in what I wrote above, 'biologically speaking'. When we study concept in logic, we seem to be considering the concept as it exists most essentially. So, the logical articulation of concepts would seem to be given ontologically speaking. If we were discussing the concept of 'horse' biologically, we would have to include other essentials, such as certain anatomical features as well as its unique genetic properties.

Is this right? I am posting this question here because there are a lot of bright people who have the correct worldview (there is such a thing as objective truth, God exists, etc.), and I believe that I can get good help here. Thanks for your attention and I look forward to dialogue with you guys!

[polyglotbyron6]

Sorry, another thing...

It occurred to me that, in my above example concerning the horse, the DNA of the horse, broadly speaking, is comprised of the material of the horse. Ibid for the horse's anatomical peculiarities. The horse's physiological functions are covered by the note 'living', the horse's ability to respond neurologically to stimuli would be covered by 'sentient', the horse's inability to reason is comprehended in 'non-rational and its very existence is covered by 'substance'. So, when we give the comprehension of a concept, we give the broadest aspects of it, which contain the more specific ones. Is this right?

Thanks again for your help!

[weatherhogge]

This is a great question and while I'm no expert, I'll give you my understanding as I'm very interested in this topic.

First, you are correct, I think that when speaking of comprehension we are speaking ontologically. But different physical characteristics in, say, animals could be essential characteristics, we humans just don't *know* if they are essential. That is why the notes are qualified as intelligible notes. We know about rationality, sentience, etc. because we are humans and we experience, and therefore know, that these are fundamental differences between different genera. So, different physical characteristics between horses and donkeys, including DNA, are all just descriptive in nature and, as far as we know, not ontologically essential. Hence, Aristotle called these non-essential features that do not necessarily flow out of essence "accidents". For example, one animal may have a split tongue and another an non-split. Why is this so? We don't know. Hence, the best we can do is to simply describe, which is within the ken of the sciences such as biology, zoology, etc. Philosophy stops where science takes over! It is true that a horse is in fact the sum total of all of its physical parts but again, we have no way knowing ontologically which, if any, are essential.

I there's something else going too, though. Physical attributes are, well, physical. The expression of ontological essence is rather metaphysical. This is true for even the term "material". When we classify an animal as "material" we are referring to the concept of a thing being able to be sensed, and not the composite physical attributes. But, the Porphyrian tree, and in fact, all of logic, treats these ontological essences as realities just as much as physical attributes. So, speaking of DNA as "essential" is mixing the physical with the conceptual. But, you really covered this when you spoke of the notes as being ontological. I've rambled on long enough!

Just so you know, these thoughts are not at all original with me. There is an excellent and much fuller discussion of all this in a book called *Basic Logic* by Raymond McCall (I think Cothran mentions it somewhere). You'll find the discussion in section 2 of chapter 1.