Re: BHA: negativity wins

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan

>and isn't the term "de-ontology" not also used in the context
>of normative and moral philosophy, or am i very wrong here ?

You're very right. Both 'deont' and 'deontology' come from the Greek
words 'deon' and 'logos'.

'Deon' comes from the verb 'deo', which has two fundamental but related
meanings:

(1) To bind, tie, fasten, fetter - hence 'deontology' = the science of
duty or moral obligation.
(2) To want, lack, miss, stand in need of - hence 'deonts' = absences.

It is very interesting that, like Bhaskar, etymology explicitly links
absence with constraint, and morality with need.

'Ont' comes from the Greek 'ta onta' ('the things which are or actually
exist, the present'), which is the plural neuter participle of 'eimi',
the Greek verb 'to be'. So 'ont' and 'deont' literally mean 'presence'
and 'absence', 'being' and 'non-being'.

I loved your list of deonts!

Mervyn

Jan Straathof <janstr@xxxxxxx> writes
>Hi Ruth,
>
>forgive me for focusing only on a detail of your interesting
>post, viz. the stuff on the so-called 'de-onts', you wrote:
>
>>1. I still don't understand why I have to grant the positive existence of
>>entities called "de-onts."  Would someone be willing (hopefully one last
>>time) to explain this to me in very plain language?  (To me, it still just
>>seems like so much re-description and making-thing-like of "things" that are
>>either states of affairs or abstractions.)
>
>what does Bhaskar say about 'de-onts' ?
>
>    "I want to differentiate within the class of ontics - understood
>    as the intransitive objects of specific epistemic inquiries - positive
>    existences or presences, which i shall dub 'onts', from negative
>    existences or absences, which i shall nominate 'de-onts'." [DPF:40]
>
>    " 'Is' and 'real' discharge the burden of ontology; 'not' and 'absent'
>    denote negativity. To admit that real absence exists and real
>    absenting occur is tantamount to concede that non-beings, i.e.
>    de-onts, are, happen etc. We thus have the theorem: ontology >
>    ontics > de-onts." [DPF:47]
>
>as far as i understand this, Bhaskar defines 'de-onts' as "negative
>existences", "absences" and "non-beings";
>
>but OK, what are real examples of this negative presence in very
>plain language ? well, personally, the more or less prosaic images
>that come into my dialectical mind-set are such as:
>
>- the absence of gravity in a space station
>- the hole in the ozon layer
>- the absence of my dead father
>- the lost final of the Dutch soccer team at the World Cup in 1974
>- the fallen Berlin Wall
>- the lack of proper health care, education somewhere
>- fascism, racism, sexism as negative presences (blocking Eudaimonia)
>- the absence of a solution to a mathematical problem
>- a perloined letter
>- a telephone off the hook
>- a lurker on a mailing-list
>- the experience of phantom limbs
>- a clock that runs slow
>- paintings of Rene Magritte
>
>hmm Ruth, don't know if this list clarifies any, but actually
>i've never had much problem with Bhaskar's 'de-onts' etc:
>must be my heidegger past ;-)
>
>yours,
>jan
>
>ps. and isn't the term "de-ontology" not also used in the context
>of normative and moral philosophy, or am i very wrong here ?
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---