You don't see the point i'm trying to make? If ancient ontology knows so much, why didn't it break down the structure of things in the actual world we live in?
I understand your criticism of blind faith etc., and your questioning of pure metaphysics. But even I, with little I know on the subject, can see that you are ignorant of what it truly was and is just by reading the above quote.
I want to genuinely attempt to 'clense the doors of perception' and leave my ego behind. Where, exactly, am I going amiss in my above criticism. I'm just assuming the following:
1. Ontology is the study of what is.
2. 'What is' involves sutdying the layers of realty.
3. When you engage in such a 'reductive' enterprise - you find out about things like germs.
4. Knowledge of germs isn't profound, but that's sort of the point. It's just a basic bit of knowledge about 'what is' that you would think any wise people would have worked out if they had discovered greater or more profound truths.
You are right, and they did know about germs. That is, I can say with certainty they speculated and that most believed in the existence of microorganisms. The specific knowledge about certain germs I don't know, but I don't deny it either. As far as I know a lot of the knowledge was restricted to very few people, many of whom probably intentionally deluded the people with false notions to get them to do what they wanted.
Thousands of years in the past people were making structural analysis of reality, breaking it down on very reasonable ways. I know little about indian thought and forms of buddhism, but those people really liked to break stuff down. And they did it with practice, considering reality.
To me, this outlook is the perfection of solipsism and anthropomorphism.
Take the all-too-human human perspective of something (namely, H20 - when you drink water you're not interacting with a 'Form', you're interacting with H20), and elevate it to a diabolical level ('essence') to have the so-called 'essence' (hydration) replace the thing in-itself (H20).
It's a bit like standing in front of a mirror masturbating over what you see.
But you can use this to compare things in reality. Woman is woman, but there are a lot of them. A tree is a thing, but there are different kinds of tree. What is this? Is there an essential tree? Then how come we perceive things like this? Is a human equal to an alligator? Or not, because it is an animal? Then is an alligator equal to dog because they're both animals? Or is an alligator equal to a chameleon? You see, maybe there is no Essential Chameleon, Essential Alligator, Essential Human, like a big, giant blueprint, transparent and glowy design in superspace or something. But simple observation of all those categories, differences and unquestionable similarities in physical appearance, organs, behavior, etc. suggest SOME kind pure essence, maybe not of every thing itself but of everything in unity. Not to mention that interior states, being a major driver of human intent, cannot rationally be thought to be totally unrelated to reality, I mean, or else they would not be the way they are. GO TO LOCATION X AND CONSUME FOOD is much better message to send than the feeling of hunger, eh? What about SYSTEM BEING DAMAGED - TAKE RADICAL ACTION NOW instead of pain? What about DO NOT STOP COITUS: INSEMINATION ALMOST DONE NOW in the place of orgasm? Orgasm, pain, hunger, those things would still exist, but they would not feel so specific, so directed. BTW the subjective experience of feeling and perception can never be "explained" objectively by science, no matter what anyone says.
We are, really, made of star dust, or something like that, no? Star is our sun, right, this is where we get energy and he is impregnating the moon everyday: If he was not directed in a way that lighted the moon we would never see it, it would be a black, lifeless ball. In fact, it is lifeless, its life being only an illusion of the Sun. As are we, but I speak on metaphorical terms, of course. Can it be that the Sun is self-conscious? Can it be that, like microorganisms seeing their reality in a whole different ways than us, not really aware of our full figure even while they're exploiting us, compares to our perception of the Sun and of his on us? I took those ideas from a book.
Other people say this a lot better than I do, anyway, so I'm going to post some quotes soon.
I'm gonna start by the blog aryan buddhism:
"There are no such things as waves. What does this mean? A wave, be it light, or as per metaphysics, empirical consciousness, is an adjective, an action, a topographical activity and coordinate ACTION. A wave is not a noun, not a thing, not a principle. A wave is the ACTION of what? (X) A wave is the amplitude (~agnosis/tolma-quanta) and frequency (manifestation) of what? (X)
This is just an analogy for your capacity towards metaphysics and genuine philosophy.