Talk:Ontological distinction

Ontological distinction has been redirected to ontology. See: Votes for deletion/Ontological distinction -- Wile E. Heresiarch 05:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Below, user:AxelBoldt accounts for ontological distinction as like the difference between gods and people. Extend this one notch to other agents such as software agents, and the original article should make a little more sense. -- Waveguy

I removed the article for the following reasons:


 * The term "ontological distinction" is used in philosophical discourse, but with a different meaning. An "ontological distinction" is a distinction based on different ways or modes of being. For instance, there is an "ontological distinction between the following two groups: {Bill Clinton, the sun, the Eiffel Tower} and {Santa Claus, Mickey Mouse, the round square}. " (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or "John did not hesitate to make an ontological distinction between God and the Word" (Google). Non standard idiosyncratic terminology and original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.
 * Even when using the given definition of "An ontological distinction separates multiple processes or states from a single being.", the article is incoherent. For instance, "Cogito ergo sum" is no ontological distinction in this sense. Mind-body dualism is an ontological distinction, but of course it is very different from Cogito ergo sum.
 * it's generally considered to be derived from or justified by cogito ergo sum - Robert Wozniak made the claim that Descartes had made a radical ontological distinction. I agree, but whatever.


 * "What makes a distinction ontological is its claim to truth" is nonsense. A distinction between red cars and green cars is not ontological, even if its truth is claimed. 24 uses "ontological" in all its writings in a non-standard way.
 * as distinct from "operational", or this "red and green cars" distinction which is "ordinary" (i.e. useful in identification or labelling, not useful in operational choices or making other categorical choices - we do not in general group all the red objects on the street, or all the green objects. While we carefully distinguish cars from people if we are intent on anything useful to people.  An ontological distinction is an arbiter of truth in some circumstances, not others.  Nowhere did I say that it was *universal* or *permanent* truth, if that's what you think I said.24


 * The question of whether God exists or not is not an ontological distinction, neither by the common definition of the term nor by using 24's idiosyncratic one.
 * that's quite an idiosyncracy, since it's shared by the entire history of Western thought through The Enlightenment. God's existence or denial thereof was the prime ontological distinction through most of the history of ontology, leading to several famous ontological proofs of God which rely on such distinctions for their validity.  Only by deliberately starting from an agnostic position (i.e. not caring) could you avoid making this ontological distinction which is common to all a/theists.  And saying "it doesn't matter if God exists" is, itself, another ontological distinction.24


 * You don't understand: the question of God's existance is a real one, but it is not an ontological distinction. Read the definition of ontological distinction again. An "ontological distinction" would be the distinction between gods and people. AxelBoldt, Saturday, April 13, 2002


 * The article contains several links to topics that are unrelated to the topic at hand, but contain similar convoluted writings.
 * if you don't like the writing, fine, you don't like the writing. Do you think that this bears much relationship to the comprehension of the topic?  I think the article on ontology is nonsense and fails to make any of the most important distinctions required for practical work on a real representation of the real world suitable for guiding some real world acton.  Likewise, as written, the article you have here is useless as well.24

AxelBoldt, Friday, April 12, 2002
 * To sum up, the whole article is typical 24 trash.
 * you attempt to troll me, but an objective reader can pretty much tell that you don't know what you're talking about on this topic. Considering the most experienced people at ontological distinction are probably Jesuits, why don't I recruit a few of those to come hack at your article?  I expect they'll side with my view not yours.24


 * Go ahead. Your threat attempts all over the place are pathetic. AxelBoldt

Anyway, silly as your ideological position is, you at least provide feedback which is lacking from the less qualified (LDC, Larry, April), of your party.24


 * How is your party doing by the way? Decided on a name yet? How about a decent governance procedure? Many people are waiting to join, you know. AxelBoldt