Volume 3: Ontology based on the natural scientific concept of existence
Every philosophical system has an ontology, the science of existence, in which, according to its own system, it deals with the problem of existence, seeks to articulate existence, and to classify existing ones into an appropriate system.According to his worldview, each one creates his own ontology…
It is no coincidence that every worldview, every philosophical conception attaches paramount importance to its ontology, because
– its conviction of existence testifies to its whole conception, its philosophical system;
– it is the basis of the relationship and hierarchy of beings; - can determine the place and importance of a person, the position of his culture and society in the order of existence and values only on the basis of the ontology….
Now we do not deal with other philosophical systems, only with a system theory based on the natural sciences and built on an energetic axiom system. We start from the natural-scientific concept of existence: we call existence what can interact or tolerate interaction. If we make this concept of existence the basis of our ontology, then the question of whether it is possible to build an ontology and whether we are able to discuss existence and structures of existence on an ontological basis can be answered in the affirmative. Of course, with the constraint that we cannot base our discipline on existence on alternatives with a priori evidence such as the principles of identity, contradiction, and strict causation. Although these are implicitly assumed as the basis of our exact and clear thinking - that is, our logic - since without them we cannot even make a logical judgment. What would we do if we had to prove for each of our concepts that the concept is identical with itself and clearly distinguishable from another concept, or would we have to prove in all our judgments that we have the right to link the concepts in a positive or negative way?
But I must emphasize: this is only a logical condition. Ontologically, there are no and cannot be a priori evident basic alternatives! – Our basic alternatives will be different and we want to explain and justify them properly during our discussion.