0

In the realm of philosophy, particularly in ontology and epistemology, how does the human practice of classifying and naming things reflect deeper philosophical principles? I am interested in understanding the philosophical significance of this practice, drawing from historical, epistemological, ontological, linguistic, ethical, and interdisciplinary perspectives.

Historical Perspective: How did philosophers like Aristotle in "Categories" influence the way we think about classification and naming? Epistemological Aspect: How do our systems of classification and naming shape, or get shaped by, our understanding of the world, as suggested by Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason"? Ontological Considerations: In what ways do debates like Realism vs. Nominalism inform our understanding of classification systems in the context of the nature of being? Language and Logic: How do theories in the philosophy of language and logic, such as those proposed by Wittgenstein in "Philosophical Investigations," impact our approach to classification and naming? Ethical and Social Dimensions: What are the ethical and social implications of classification and naming practices, as explored by thinkers like Foucault in "The Order of Things"? Interdisciplinary Connections: How does the philosophy of science, particularly views from Kuhn’s "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," contribute to our understanding of scientific classification and naming?

Humberto José Bortolossi
  • 109
  • 3
  • John Locke..... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 17 '22 at 19:04
  • 2
    See Quine’s famous paper of 1948 On What There Is or Kripke's Naming and Necessity which are consistent with contemporary analytic philosophy tradition and later Wittgenstein's philosophy of language expressed in his famous Philosophical Investigation. Of course on the other hand from antiquity of perennial philosophy it's known that not everything can be felicitously named such as famously expressed in Tao Te Ching: The name that can be named is not the eternal name... As for classification in an essentialist way it's more debatable, for example, classifying the good and the bad... – Double Knot Sep 18 '22 at 05:34
  • You might consider posting this question to psychology stack for another perspective. –  Sep 19 '22 at 07:13
  • Questions about really deep human behaviors tend to need, or at least readily admit, answers about natural selection (not necessarily biological evolution), which makes them empirical questions about historical facts and not questions about logical inferences from known facts and axioms. Therefore I think this question is better suited for Psychology (use the Evolutionary Psychology tag) or History (use the Prehistory tag) SE. – g s Dec 15 '23 at 17:19
  • For example, one possible reason is just that tribes who classified and named things more starved to death a little less often. – g s Dec 15 '23 at 17:42
  • A perceiving system could not develop if all things were not determined. Look at the AIs. With bits, their mental processes continue, and this is their form. – fkybrd Dec 21 '23 at 13:31

2 Answers2

2

Unfortunately, I don't really have a reference for you, but hopefully this will feel intuitive for you: Classification is simply the nature of the human mind. The only way we can logically come to understand something is by breaking it down into smaller and smaller pieces until our understanding of it is sufficiently fundamental. Classification is just a byproduct – it helps us in this act of discrimination because it means we have very distinctly and carefully made categories which we can use to separate things. For example, if you were studying biology and wanted to understand how all life on Earth is related, you would turn to taxonomy. Taxonomy classifies things (although not super carefully) in a manner that it is clear to see the things that connect all life the broader we get, and how similar we are to other organism the more and more specific the classification becomes. Classification is just a means of understanding things better through the use of precision. Not all people realize that they are doing it, and not all people do it well, but nevertheless all of us classify as we learn more and more and try to understand things better.

Ethan Dandelion
  • 221
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    Decomposition (breaking down into smaller pieces) is certainly not the only way to understand a thing. Just as one example, there is understanding on the basis of relationships. There are others. Classification can happen without decomposition, and often happens when identifying a thing as a member of a group. Classification is not "just a byproduct." – BillOnne Sep 19 '22 at 01:29
  • 1
    As far as logical understanding goes (I'm putting existential/experiential knowledge aside here), no matter what you're doing, you're classifying/decomposing. Any effort to understand something is through the means of clarifying what something means and contrasting it towards other things or comparing it with them. If you can offer another form I'd be happy to change my mind. @BillOnne – Ethan Dandelion Sep 19 '22 at 03:16
  • @BillOnne do you have references that goes deeper in your point of view? – Humberto José Bortolossi Dec 31 '23 at 13:18
0

Classification and naming are part of the process of abstraction. This wiki artcile could give you an introduction. But please don't let that be the last thing you read on the subject.

An important utility of abstraction is that we can minipulate abstract concepts in ways that are difficult to do with concretes. If you have a particular dog (suppose his name is Fido) and another particular dog (called Spot), then it is difficult to derive general ideas about dogs. If you derive a class and give it the name "dog" then you can manipulate the class in ways that it is difficult to manipulate the concepts Spot and Fido.

For example: Dogs have this set of characteristics including a typical life span in the range of 9 to 13 years for most large breeds. This allows you to know that if Spot is 4, he is still quite young. And if Fido is 12 then he is getting on.

This is a trivial example. Abstract concepts will allow similar simplification and organization of the concrete into the general. And they will do this in many different subjects and many different ways.

BillOnne
  • 1,537
  • 3
  • 15