Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||There are two main ways, philosophically, of characterizing the business of ontology, and it is good practice to try and keep them separate. On one account, made popular by Quine, ontology is concerned with the question of what there is. Since to say that there are things that are not would be selfcontradictory, Quine famously pronounced that such a question can be answered in a single word—‘Everything’. However, to say ‘Everything’ is to say nothing. It is merely to say that there is what there is, unless one goes on to specify the population of the domain over which one quantifies—and here there is plenty of room for disagreement. You may think that ‘everything’ covers particulars as well as universals, I may think that it only covers the former; you may think that the domain includes abstract particulars along with concrete ones, I may think that it only includes the latter; and so on. Exactly how such disagreements can be framed is itself a rather intricate question, as is the question of how one goes about figuring out one’s own views on such matters. But some way or other we all have beliefs of this sort, at least as soon as we start philosophizing about the world, and to work out such beliefs is to engage in ontological inquiries. The other way of characterizing ontology stems from a different concern, and made its way into our times through Brentano and his pupils. On this second account, the task of ontology is not to specify what there is but, rather, to lay bare the formal structure of all there is, whatever it is. Regardless of whether our domain of quantification includes universals along with particulars, abstract entities along with concrete ones, and so on, it must exibit some general features and obey some general laws, and the task of ontology would be to figure out such features and laws. For instance, it would pertain to the task of ontology to assert that every entity, no matter what it is, is self-identical, or that no entity can consist of a single proper part, or that some entity can depend on another only if the latter does not depend on the former..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Johanna Seibt (2010). Particulars. In Roberto Poli & Johanna Seibt (eds.), Theories and Applications of Ontology. Springer.
Barry Smith (2004). Beyond Concepts: Ontology as Reality Representation. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS).
Barry Smith, Pierre Grenon & Louis Goldberg (2004). Biodynamic Ontology: Applying BFO in the Biomedical Domain. Studies in Health and Technology Informatics 102:20–38.
Luc Schneider (2010). Revisiting the Ontological Square. In Anthony Galton & Riichiro Mizoguchi (eds.), Proceeding of the 2010 conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (FOIS 2010). IOS Press.
Michael J. Loux (ed.) (1970/1976). Universals and Particulars: Readings in Ontology. University of Notre Dame Press.
L. B. Brown (2011). Do Higher-Order Music Ontologies Rest on a Mistake? British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (2):169-184.
Daniel von Wachter (2000). A World of Fields. In J. Faye, U. Scheffler & M. Urchs (eds.), Things, Facts and Events. Rhodopi.
Lucía Lewowicz & Olimpia Lombardi (2013). Stuff Versus Individuals. Foundations of Chemistry 15 (1):65-77.
Peter Van Inwagen (1998). Meta-Ontology. Erkenntnis 48 (2/3):233 - 250.
Achille C. Varzi (2011). On Doing Ontology Without Metaphysics. Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1):407-423.
Added to index2010-03-02
Total downloads72 ( #14,324 of 729,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 729,984 )
How can I increase my downloads?