77
submitted 1 month ago by plinky@hexbear.net to c/slop@hexbear.net
all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Llituro@hexbear.net 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

in what sense could ontology possibly be considered a word popularized by palantir?

and of course, if i can sneak some effort about ontology into c/slop, here's a long david graeber anthropology paper about ontology and its application in which lens should be employed when studying other people's cultures. https://davidgraeber.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-Radical-aterity-is-just-another-way-of-saying-reality-A-reply-to-Viveiros-de-Castro.pdf

edit: the discussion of ontology in philosophy begins at the bottom of page 14

[-] Formerlyfarman@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A few years ago I wanted to learn about ontology and piked an MIT book called generating formal ontologies, or something, it was complete bullshit, it was not about metaphysics but about some sort of book keeping bullshit. Absolute nonsensical garbage. I made it a third in, there was this annoying uncritical lib brain worms tone to it. Horrible book, reinforcing my preconception, that the old moneyed wasps attending those universities are so inbread, they might as well be clones of each other.

Edit: the book was basically the opposite of what you or any reasonable person understands as ontology. One should learn ontology to be able to tell those categories used in the book are arbitrary, man made, and meaningless outside some very narrow cultural context. It's like they live in their own little isolated village, with no curiosity or awareness of new ideas.

these removedes have been using ontology to refer to the management of databases/ bookkeeping for years, even in academic contexts. Probably one of them thought it was a cool sounding word a while ago, and it unfortunately stuck. This pisses me of so much.

[-] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

Back before the current machine learning AI craze, there was a movement to try to create AI by explicitly programming every possible bit of ordinary world and common sense knowledge into computers. The people who were paid (often quite well) to tell computers things like "if a person is in a room, then their upper half is also in the room" were often called "professional ontologists."

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 14 points 1 month ago

The virgin ‘ontology’ vs the chad ‘dialectics’.

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 8 points 1 month ago

Materialism is an ontological stance

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago

What’s more curious, buddhism might be an ontological stance trump-enlightened

[-] purpleworm@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

It has an ontological stance (or a couple between various schools), but saying it is an ontological stance is like saying that Christianity is a large volume of numbers.

[-] john_brown@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago

I have known a Christian numerologist in the past and they would very aggressively agree that Christianity is a large volume of numbers

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Nostradamus has entered the chat

[-] Hestia@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago

I'm deeply concerned about all these children existing. How can I make this philosophical?

this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
77 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

847 readers
533 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS