Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (2):171-186 (2003)
|Abstract||This paper compares two basic approaches to “ontology”. One originated within the analytic tradition, and it encompasses two diverging streams, philosophy of language and (contemporary) philosophy of mind which lead to “reduced ontology” and “neo-Aristotelian ontology”, respectively. The other approach is “phenomenological ontology” (more precisely, the Husserlian, not the Heideggerian version).Ontology as a theory of reference (“reduced” ontology, or ontology dependent on semantics) is presented and justified on the basis of some classical thesis of traditional philosophy of language (from Frege to Quine). “Reduced ontology” is shown to be identifiable with one level of the traditional, Aristotelian ontology, which corresponds to one ofthe four “senses of Being” listed in Aristotle’s Metaphysics: “being” as “being true”. This identification is justified on the basis of Brentano’s “rules for translation” of the Aristotelian table of judgements in terms of (positive and negative) existential judgments such as are easily translatable into sentences of first order predicate logic.The second part of the paper is concerned with “neo-Aristotelian ontology”, i.e. with naturalism and physicalism as the main ontological options underlying most of the contemporary discussion in philosophy of mind. The qualification of such options as “neo-Aristotelian” is justified; the relationships between “neo-Aristotelian” and “reduced” ontology are discussed. The third part presents the basic claim of “phenomenological ontology”: the claim that a logical theory of existence and being does capture a sense of “existing” and “being” which, even if not itself the basic one, is grounded in the basic one. An attempt is done at further clarifying this “more basic” sense of “being”. An argument making use of this supposedly “more basic” sense is advanced in favour of “phenomenological ontology”|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alessandro Giordani (2006). Aristotelian and Naturalistic Ontology. In A. Corradini, S. Galvan & E. J. Lowe (eds.), Analytic Philosophy Without Naturalism. Routledge.
Kanti Lal Das & Anirban Mukherjee (eds.) (2008). Language and Ontology. Northern Book Centre.
Eli Hirsch (2010). Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology. Oxford University Press.
Arkadiusz Chrudzimski & Barry Smith (2004). Brentano’s Ontology: From Conceptualism to Reism. In Dale Jacquette (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Brentano. Cambridge University Press.
Jonas R. B. Arenhart (2012). Ontological Frameworks for Scientific Theories. Foundations of Science 17 (4):339-356.
Arkadiusz Chrudzimski (2004). Roman Ingarden. Ontology From a Phenomenological Point of View. Reports on Philosophy 22:121-142.
James M. Fielding & Dirk Marwede (2012). The Anatomy of the Image: Toward an Applied Onto-Psychiatry. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 18 (4):287-303.
Lucía Lewowicz & Olimpia Lombardi (2013). Stuff Versus Individuals. Foundations of Chemistry 15 (1):65-77.
Uriah Kriegel (2011). Two Defenses of Common-Sense Ontology. Dialectica 65 (2):177-204.
Meinard Kuhlmann (2010). The Ultimate Constituents of the Material World - In Search of an Ontology for Fundamental Physics. ontos.
Barry Smith & Chris Welty (2002). Ontology: Towards a New Synthesis. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems. ACM Press.
Lorenz B. Puntel (2001). Truth, Sentential Non-Compositionality, and Ontology. Synthese 126 (1-2):221 - 259.
Thomas Hofweber, Logic and Ontology. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads3 ( #213,250 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?