I’m not familiar with that usage. Now that I’m thinking about it. I wonder how many times a week people post “What does ontologically mean?” in places like r/AskPhilosophy. And then I imagine there are heated arguments.
“Yeah - I know it means something in philosophy and philosophy is really important. I get that. But in your 2,000 word reply you didn’t answer my question. What does it mean on Facebook?”
I believe and ontology is just a collection of concepts. So “ontological” is frequently used in relation to the Bible or Catholic ontology.
X being ontologically Y in that case would mean that in the context of the referenced ontology, X fits in the category of Y.
Without an ontology specified, the usual fallback is either context or just Christianity. So “this picture is ontologically evil” would mean that “this picture is satanic” in the Christian context, or, in the Facebook context, it just distills down to a synonym for “very” or “definitively” since it’s meant to reenforce that the Facebook ontology would determine that the photo is evil.
I wonder if the OP knew the Christian/Facebook connection. In any case - his post is funny to me now.
-–
Ninja edit
Like everything else I just realized AI will surely get in on the fun and add its gibberish two cents for “ontological(ly)”.
“What does Shrimp Jesus mean?” is filled with ontological overtones. The addition of “ontologically evil” could mean the poster is joking and unaware of its hatefulness. Or it could mean the poster is intentionally blaspheming the Lord which is a sin. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and shellfish. And I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.
I think at this point no one really knows the context, it just sounds cool and is better than using a common superlative.
The reason is kinda fits it just because the root word was been used a lot in religious contexts without a specified ontological basis (since Christianity is implied). Which means that people are using it that way without the Christian context. Which initially makes it confusing, but if you just slot in “Facebook Zeitgeist” as your ontological basis, it actually makes sense even if that wasn’t the intended use.
I’m not familiar with that usage. Now that I’m thinking about it. I wonder how many times a week people post “What does ontologically mean?” in places like r/AskPhilosophy. And then I imagine there are heated arguments.
“Yeah - I know it means something in philosophy and philosophy is really important. I get that. But in your 2,000 word reply you didn’t answer my question. What does it mean on Facebook?”
I believe and ontology is just a collection of concepts. So “ontological” is frequently used in relation to the Bible or Catholic ontology.
X being ontologically Y in that case would mean that in the context of the referenced ontology, X fits in the category of Y.
Without an ontology specified, the usual fallback is either context or just Christianity. So “this picture is ontologically evil” would mean that “this picture is satanic” in the Christian context, or, in the Facebook context, it just distills down to a synonym for “very” or “definitively” since it’s meant to reenforce that the Facebook ontology would determine that the photo is evil.
I wonder if the OP knew the Christian/Facebook connection. In any case - his post is funny to me now.
-–
Ninja edit
Like everything else I just realized AI will surely get in on the fun and add its gibberish two cents for “ontological(ly)”.
“What does Shrimp Jesus mean?” is filled with ontological overtones. The addition of “ontologically evil” could mean the poster is joking and unaware of its hatefulness. Or it could mean the poster is intentionally blaspheming the Lord which is a sin. Or it could mean you’re the righteous man and I’m the shepherd and it’s the world that’s evil and shellfish. And I’d like that. But that shit ain’t the truth. The truth is you’re the weak. And I’m the tyranny of evil men. But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard to be the shepherd.
I think at this point no one really knows the context, it just sounds cool and is better than using a common superlative.
The reason is kinda fits it just because the root word was been used a lot in religious contexts without a specified ontological basis (since Christianity is implied). Which means that people are using it that way without the Christian context. Which initially makes it confusing, but if you just slot in “Facebook Zeitgeist” as your ontological basis, it actually makes sense even if that wasn’t the intended use.