Graduate studies at Western
Foundations of Science 17 (4):339-356 (2012)
|Abstract||A close examination of the literature on ontology may strike one with roughly two distinct senses of this word. According to the first of them, which we shall call traditional ontology , ontology is characterized as the a priori study of various “ontological categories”. In a second sense, which may be called naturalized ontology , ontology relies on our best scientific theories and from them it tries to derive the ultimate furniture of the world. From a methodological point of view these two senses of ontology are very far away. Here, we discuss a possible relationship between these senses and argue that they may be made compatible and complement each other. We also examine how logic, understood as a linguistic device dealing with the conceptual framework of a theory and its basic inference patterns must be taken into account in this kind of study. The idea guiding our proposal may be put as follows: naturalized ontology checks for the applicability of the ontological categories proposed by traditional ontology and give substantial feedback for it. The adequate expression of some of the resulting ontological frameworks may require a different logic. We conclude with a discussion of the case of orthodox quantum mechanics, arguing that this theory exemplifies the kind of relationship between the two senses of ontology. We also argue that the view proposed here may throw some light in ontological questions concerning this theory|
|Keywords||Ontology Ontological categories Naturalized Ontology Quantum mechanics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jan Westerhoff (2002). Defining 'Ontological Category'. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102 (3):287–293.
Johanna Oksala (2010). Foucault's Politicization of Ontology. Continental Philosophy Review 43 (4):445-466.
Peter Van Inwagen (1998). Meta-Ontology. Erkenntnis 48 (2/3):233 - 250.
Erik Weber (2006). Are There Ontological Explanations? Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):277-283.
C. Ulises Moulines (2001). Ontology, Reduction, and the Unity of Science. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:19-27.
Jan Westerhoff (2004). The Construction of Ontological Categories. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (4):595 – 620.
Hans-Johann Glock (2002). Does Ontology Exist? Philosophy 77 (2):235-260.
Ingvar Johansson (1989). Ontological Investigations: An Inquiry Into the Categories of Nature, Man, and Society. Routledge.
Uriah Kriegel (2011). Two Defenses of Common-Sense Ontology. Dialectica 65 (2):177-204.
Adam Olszewski (2010). Kilka uwag o kryterium Quine'a. Filozofia Nauki 1.
Matti Eklund (2009). Carnap and Ontological Pluralism. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press.
Srećko Kovač (2012). Modal Collapse in Gödel's Ontological Proof. In Miroslaw Szatkowski (ed.), Ontological Proofs Today. Ontos Verlag.
Thomas Hofweber (1999). Ontology and Objectivity. Dissertation, Stanford University
S. Ducheyne (2008). Towards an Ontology of Scientific Models. Metaphysica 9 (1):119-127.
Added to index2012-04-09
Total downloads72 ( #14,328 of 739,325 )
Recent downloads (6 months)21 ( #6,093 of 739,325 )
How can I increase my downloads?