Reply (more questions on): orientation upon objects and ontology of objects

Nice background to your thinking. Speaking of backgrounds, I would like to add your bio.

Anyways, and so it is, my work is more about “orientation upon objects“, than it is about an ontology of objects; I actually play around with the notion that I am concerned more with teleology.  

Orientation upon objects and significance of significance

I am assuming that objects are objects of the mind. If so, how does one ‘orientate’ to an aspatial object? I am not saying it is impossible but would like to hear how it is done in this philosophy.

So far as the question about my answer to what religion is, I say that it has to do with an orientation upon objects.  And the arguments that Harmon gives really outline the reason why the fundamental, or what I call the significant issue in philosophy is an orientation upon objects, and not so much about what particular argument I might want to make about an ontology of objects. I speak more to the Being itself in the context of causality. And that’s why I am beginning to look at Aristotle’s notions of cause

It would also seem important establish what exists (ontology of objects) in order to talk about how one may orient to it. To Aristotle I am also looking, so I am interested in this. I am not looking at cause though.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s