Key Takeaways
1. Ontology: The Fundamental Inquiry into What Exists and Its Nature.
This book is an introductory guide to contemporary ontology in the analytic philosophical tradition, dealing mainly with questions about what things exist, and what those things are like.
Beyond everyday existence. Ontology, a core branch of metaphysics, delves into questions far more general than whether black holes or new species exist. While physicists or biologists seek specific entities, ontologists ponder categories of existence itself. They ask if things like numbers, properties, events, or works of music truly exist, or if our world is exhaustively described by material objects alone.
Illustrative questions. Consider a historical event like the Battle of the Somme. Beyond the soldiers, guns, and terrain, an ontologist asks: Do "events" themselves exist as distinct entities? Do "places" like the Somme exist? What about "properties" like pain, or "numbers" like 19,420? These are not questions about specific instances, but about the very categories of being.
The scope of inquiry. This pursuit aims to build a comprehensive inventory of reality, not just of individual items, but of the fundamental kinds of things that populate the universe. It challenges us to look beyond the obvious and question the underlying structure of existence, exploring whether our everyday language accurately reflects what truly is.
2. Metaontology: The Crucial Debate on How to Do Ontology.
However, in ontology, the methodology is itself a prime suspect as a cause of many of the problems.
Methodological uncertainty. Unlike mature scientific disciplines with established methods, ontology grapples with how to even approach its profound questions. There's no universally agreed-upon "scientific method" for determining if numbers exist or if time is real. This lack of consensus on methodology, or metaontology, is a central challenge and a vibrant area of philosophical debate.
Diverse approaches. Different ontologists employ radically different strategies. Some rely on logical analysis of language, others on coherence with intuition, while still others look to scientific theories for guidance. This diversity means that conclusions often depend heavily on the chosen methodological framework, leading to deep disagreements not just about answers, but about how to find them.
An evolving field. The study of metaontology is about understanding these different approaches, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, and ultimately contributing to the maturation of the discipline itself. It's an exciting frontier where the very rules of the game are still being written, offering a unique opportunity to shape the future of philosophical inquiry.
3. Abstract vs. Concrete: A Fundamental Divide with Fluid Definitions.
Words like ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ are terms of art, and one can freely make up a term of art and define it to mean whatever one wants – there’s no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about it!
Categorizing existence. Ontologists broadly categorize entities into "abstract" and "concrete." Concrete things are typically those located in space and time, like people, planets, and events. Abstract things, conversely, are not found anywhere in space-time, such as numbers, properties, or possibilities.
The "Platonic Heaven." Abstract entities are often metaphorically said to reside in a "Platonic Heaven," signifying their non-spatial, non-temporal nature. This distinction is crucial because questions about concrete objects (e.g., "Is there a hippopotamus in the next room?") feel more intuitive than questions about abstract ones (e.g., "Does the number 7 exist?").
Definitional fluidity. Despite their fundamental importance, the precise definitions of "abstract" and "concrete" are not universally fixed. Philosophers often adapt these terms to suit their specific arguments, leading to subtle but significant variations in meaning. This highlights the need for careful attention to an author's specific usage when engaging with ontological literature.
4. Ontological Commitment: Unpacking What Our Language Truly Implies.
The ontological commitments of a sentence aren’t always what its surface grammar indicates.
Beyond literal meaning. Our everyday language often appears to commit us to the existence of entities that philosophers might question. For instance, "There is a prime number between 5 and 11" seems to imply numbers exist. However, a core metaontological task is to determine if such statements truly commit us to these entities, or if their "surface grammar" is misleading.
The Quinean approach. Willard van Orman Quine proposed that ontological commitment is revealed by translating sentences into first-order logic and identifying what the existential quantifier (∃) ranges over. If a sentence's logical translation quantifies over "holes," then it commits us to holes. This method provides a rigorous way to assess a theory's existential claims.
Paraphrasing as a strategy. Anti-realists often employ "paraphrasing" to avoid unwanted commitments. They argue that problematic sentences can be rephrased into alternative sentences that do not quantify over the disputed entities, yet retain the original meaning. For example, "There are holes in the bucket" might be paraphrased as "The bucket is perforated," quantifying only over buckets, not holes.
5. Theoretical Virtues Guide the Choice Between Competing Ontologies.
For every theory, every position, every argument (heck, every assertion!) contained in this book, there is a serious philosopher somewhere who denies it.
Cost-benefit analysis. When evaluating competing ontological theories, philosophers engage in a "cost-benefit analysis." No theory is perfect; all have strengths and weaknesses. The goal is to determine which theory offers the best overall balance of theoretical virtues, even if it means accepting some counter-intuitive conclusions.
Key theoretical virtues include:
- Coherence with intuitions: How well a theory aligns with our common-sense beliefs.
- Explanatory power: How much a theory explains, and how few "brute truths" it leaves unexplained.
- Ideological parsimony: The number of undefined primitive terms or concepts a theory requires.
- Ontological parsimony: The number of entities or kinds of entities a theory posits (often summarized as "Occam's Razor").
Weighing the virtues. The challenge lies in the fact that these virtues often conflict. A theory that is ontologically parsimonious (e.g., denying the existence of many objects) might severely clash with our intuitions. Conversely, a theory that perfectly aligns with intuition might be ideologically or ontologically "bloated." The absence of a fixed hierarchy for these virtues contributes to the ongoing debates in ontology.
6. Science Offers Insights, But Not Definitive Answers, to Metaphysical Questions.
The sciences are a mature discipline – whilst their methodology might not be perfect (for proof, pick up a book on the philosophy of science!), their conclusions are built on far more stable foundations than those you’ll find in ontology.
Interplay with physics. While ontology is not a science, it frequently engages with scientific theories, particularly physics, to inform its conclusions. For instance, debates about the existence of space (substantivalism vs. relationism) often draw on Newton's arguments from absolute acceleration or Einstein's theory of general relativity.
Scientific indispensability arguments. Some philosophers argue that if certain entities (like numbers) are indispensable to our best scientific theories, then we should be realists about them. The Quine-Putnam indispensability argument suggests that if science relies on mathematical entities to explain the world, then those entities must exist.
Limitations and interpretations. However, science rarely provides definitive metaphysical answers. Scientific theories can be interpreted in multiple ways, some of which might be compatible with different ontological positions. For example, while special relativity challenges presentism by relativizing simultaneity, presentists can offer alternative interpretations or even question the finality of current scientific models.
7. The Immature State of Ontology: A Field Ripe for Exploration.
Ontology is an old discipline, but an immature one – a misanthrope of the intellectual areas that never quite left home to make it on its own in the world.
A discipline in flux. Despite its ancient roots, ontology is characterized by profound disagreements, not just about what exists, but about the very methods for answering such questions. This "immaturity" means there's no widely accepted methodology, no single set of foundational principles, and often, no clear path to resolving disputes.
Excitement in the uncertainty. This state of flux, however, is presented not as a weakness, but as an exciting opportunity. Like the scientists of the Enlightenment, contemporary ontologists are actively shaping the discipline's future, grappling with fundamental questions at a foundational stage. This makes it a dynamic and intellectually stimulating field.
Your role in the debate. Readers are encouraged to engage critically, recognizing that every assertion is open to challenge and that their own reasoned opinions can contribute to the field's development. The journey through ontology is one of continuous questioning, evaluation, and the potential to witness, and participate in, its ongoing maturation.
Last updated:
