Spheres of Being and the Network of Ontological Dependencies
Polish Journal of Philosophy 4 (2):171-182 (2010)
| Abstract | Ontological categories form a network of ties of dependence. In this regard, the richest source of distinctions consists in the medieval discussion on the divisions of being. After a preliminary examination of some of those divisions, the paper pays attention to Roman Ingarden’s criteria for classifying the various types of ontological dependence. The following are the main conclusions that can be drawn from this exercise. Ingarden suggests that (1) the most general principles framing the categories of particulars are based on couples of mutually opposed principles; (2) the most general among these couples of principles appear to be based on three different types of modalities; (3) subsequent couples of opposed principles do not seem to require the introduction of further types of modalities, and (4) the overall typology shows that there are three spheres of being, respectively composed of ideal entities, real entities and intentional entities as contents of psychological acts | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPierre Livet (2012). Web Ontologies as Renewal of Classical Philosophical Ontology. Metaphilosophy 43 (4):396-404.
Jan Westerhoff (2004). The Construction of Ontological Categories. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (4):595 – 620.
Uwe Meixner (1998). Actual Existence, Identity and Ontological Priority. Erkenntnis 48 (2-3):209-226.
Phil Corkum (forthcoming). Substance and Independence in Aristotle. In B. Schnieder, A. Steinberg & M. Hoeltje (eds.), Ontological Dependence, Supervenience, and Response-Dependence. Basic Philosophical Concepts Series, Philosophia Verlag.
Francisco José Soler Gil (2004). Eine Welt Ohne Individuelle Entitäten? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (2):331 - 349.
Fabrice Correia (2008). Ontological Dependence. Philosophy Compass 3 (5):1013-1032.
Arkadiusz Chrudzimski (2004). Roman Ingarden. Ontology From a Phenomenological Point of View. Reports on Philosophy 22:121-142.
David Baronov (2008). Biomedicine: An Ontological Dissection. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (4):235-254.
Benjamin Schnieder (2006). A Certain Kind of Trinity: Dependence, Substance, Explanation. Philosophical Studies 129 (2):393 - 419.
Alexander Paseau (2010). Defining Ultimate Ontological Basis and the Fundamental Layer. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):169-175.
Kenneth C. Clatterbaugh (1965). General Ontology and the Principle of Acquaintance. Philosophy of Science 32 (3/4):272-276.
Vera Hoffmann (2006). Can Heil's Ontological Conception Accommodate Complex Properties? In Michael Esfeld (ed.), John Heil. Symposium on his Ontological Point of View. ontos verlag.
Amie Thomasson (2001). Ontological Minimalism. American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (4):319 - 331.
Katherine Hawley (2006). Principles of Composition and Criteria of Identity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (4):481 – 493.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2012-03-18Total downloads8 ( #123,161 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,122 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
