Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systemic Ontology and Heidegger’s Ontology: A Discussion on Systems and “Logos”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Systemics of Incompleteness and Quasi-Systems

Part of the book series: Contemporary Systems Thinking ((CST))

  • 445 Accesses

Abstract

Systems thought is essentially based on recognizing the existence of structural relations but, from the philosophical point of view, there are no accounts about this particular and specific topic. In my paper I would present a proposal focused on some elements from Heidegger’s ontology in comparison with a systemic one, in order to provide some contents for this issue. I’m especially focusing on the interconnection between the Greek and Aristotelian terms physis (\(\varphi {\acute {\upsilon }} \sigma \iota \varsigma \)), logos (\(\lambda {\acute {o}} \gamma o \varsigma \)) and on (oν), conceived within the Heideggerian interpretation, to display how incompleteness and openness are required for the development of a systemic ontology, with even important consequences in a systemic approach to the human being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Von Bertalanffy (1969, p. 58).

  2. 2.

    See the three volumes edited by Urbani Ulivi (2010, 2013, 2015) especially the contributions from Urbani Ulivi, Giuliani, Minati, Vitiello and Del Giudice. For some considerations on a systemic anthropology from a philosophical point of view see also Bartolini (2015).

  3. 3.

    For example, the volume edited by Hooker (2011) represents a notable effort in showing the “revolutionary” contribution of systems thought, but it focuses only on Sciences and on Philosophy of Science, without considering other possible implications in Humanities.

  4. 4.

    Fried and Polt (2014, pp. 43–44).

  5. 5.

    Fried and Polt (2014, p. 46).

  6. 6.

    Sachs (1999, p. 117, 1028 a).

  7. 7.

    Sachs (1999, p. 152, 1041 b).

  8. 8.

    Anderson (1972, p. 393).

  9. 9.

    For an essential description of this specific topic see for example Laszlo (1972, pp. 165–180).

  10. 10.

    The adjective “hierarchical” is not adopted here with a connotation of value in which higher level is ontologically superior to the lower one or vice versa: it only recognizes the presence of a relational structure.

  11. 11.

    Bateson (1979, p. 8).

  12. 12.

    Baracchi (2013, pp. 204–219, see especially pp. 206–212).

  13. 13.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 206).

  14. 14.

    Mari (2011, p. 586).

  15. 15.

    Mari (2011, p. 586, my translation).

  16. 16.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 211).

  17. 17.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 211).

  18. 18.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 211, italics mine).

  19. 19.

    Baracchi (2016, p. 24, my translation).

  20. 20.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 206).

  21. 21.

    For a more detailed examination of this issue, see Urbani Ulivi (2014) and Bartolini (2014).

  22. 22.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 206).

  23. 23.

    Minati (2010, p. 36, my translation).

  24. 24.

    Vitiello (Cf. 2010, pp. 111–113).

  25. 25.

    (Ibidem, my translation).

  26. 26.

    (Ibidem, my translation).

  27. 27.

    (Ibidem).

  28. 28.

    Fried and Polt (2014, p. 16).

  29. 29.

    Metcalf and Tanzer (2009, pp. 32–33).

  30. 30.

    See Fried and Polt (2014, p. 15):

    Phusis is Being itself, by virtue of which beings first become and remain observable,

    and Fried and Polt (2014, p. 145):

    Logos is constant gathering, the gatheredness of beings that stands in itself, that is, Being.

  31. 31.

    Fay (1977, p. 95).

  32. 32.

    (Ibidem); here it is clear the reference to Heraclitus fragment 50.

  33. 33.

    For what concerns the relation between logos and ousia, see also Heidegger’s words in Metcalf and Tanzer (2009, p. 15):

    The logos as horismos (\(\acute {o} \negthinspace \rho \iota \sigma \negthinspace \mu \acute {o} \varsigma \)) addresses beings in their ousia, in their being there.

  34. 34.

    Brogan and Warnek (1995, p. 103):

    [...] this is the structure we call “language”, speaking; but not understood as vocalizing, rather in the sense of a speaking that says something, means something [...]. Logos is discourse, the gathering laying open, unifying making something known [Kundmachen]; and indeed above all in the broad sense which also includes pleading, making a request, praying, questioning, wishing, commanding and like.

  35. 35.

    Baracchi (2013, p. 211).

  36. 36.

    Baracchi (2008).

  37. 37.

    Urbani Ulivi (2010).

References

  • Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Broken symmetry and the nature of hierarchical structure of science. Science, 4047(177), 393–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baracchi, C. (2008). Aristotle’s ethics as first philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baracchi, C. (2013). The syntax of Life: Gregory Bateson and the “Platonic View”. Research in Phenomenology, 43, 204–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baracchi, C. (2016). Amicizia. Milano: Ugo Mursia Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, E. (2014). Lavori sistemici. Confronti in un privatissimum. Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica, 106(3), 687–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, E. (2015). Per un’antropologia sistemica. Studi sul “De Anima” di Aristotele, Senago: Albo Versorio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. A necessary unity. New York: E. P. Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogan, W., & Warnek, P. (1995). Martin Heidegger. Aristotle’s metaphysics Θ 1–3. On the essence and actuality of force. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fay, T. A. (1977). Heidegger: The critique of logic. The Hague: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, G., & Polt, R. (Trans.) (2014). Martin Heidegger. Introduction to metaphysics (2nd ed.). New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, C. (Ed.). (2011). Philosophy of complex systems. Oxford/Amsterdam/Waltham: Elsevier.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo, E. (1972). Introduction to systems philosophy. Toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mari, L. (2011). Qualche riflessione sulla retroazione. Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica, 103(4), 571–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, R. D., & Tanzer, M. B. (Trans.) (2009). Martin Heidegger. Basic concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minati, G. (2010). Sistemi: Origini e Prospettive. In L. Urbani Ulivi (Ed.), Strutture di Mondo. Il Pensiero Sistemico come Specchio di una Realtà Complessa (pp. 15–46). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. (Trans.) (1999). Aristotle. Metaphysics (2nd ed.). Santa Fe: Green Lion Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbani Ulivi, L. (2014). Approfondimenti sistemici. Seminari e privatissimum. Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica, 106(3), 453–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbani Ulivi, L. (Ed.). (2010). Strutture di Mondo. Il Pensiero Sistemico come Specchio di una Realtà Complessa. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbani Ulivi, L. (Ed.). (2013). Strutture di Mondo. Il Pensiero Sistemico come Specchio di una Realtà Complessa. (Volume Secondo). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbani Ulivi, L. (Ed.). (2015). Strutture di Mondo. Il Pensiero Sistemico come Specchio di una Realtà Complessa. (Volume Terzo). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitiello, G. (2010). Dissipazione e Coerenza nella Dinamica Cerebrale. In L. Urbani Ulivi (Ed.), Strutture di Mondo. Il Pensiero Sistemico come Specchio di una Realtà Complessa (pp. 111–113). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General system theory. Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Milano – Bicocca, Milano, Italy

    Elena Bartolini

Authors
  1. Elena Bartolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Bartolini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. AIRS / Italian Systems Society, Milano, Italy

    Gianfranco Minati

  2. AIRS / Italian Systems Society, Milano, Italy

    Mario R. Abram

  3. Department of Brain and Behavioral Science, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Eliano Pessa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bartolini, E. (2019). Systemic Ontology and Heidegger’s Ontology: A Discussion on Systems and “Logos”. In: Minati, G., Abram, M., Pessa, E. (eds) Systemics of Incompleteness and Quasi-Systems. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15277-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation