Although the term taxon is one of the most common concepts in biology, a range of its meanings cannot be comprehended by an universal definition. Usually, biologists construe their knowledge of “the same” taxon by substantially different interpretations, so they find themselves in need either to justify this “multiplication of taxon essences”, or to surmount their plurality unifying its interpretations into a single explanation of what a taxon is. In both cases, an ontological status (“reality”) of that taxon is (...) questioned. Therefore, discrepancy between universality of the taxon concept in biology and unavoidable plurality of its interpretations can be regarded as a source of problem of the taxon ontology. The present work aims to clarify the premises of this discrepancy using phenomenological approach. Three ways of the taxon positing (as a class, as a place in the world, and as a individualized body) have been distinguished. Taxon as a class is established by common essence that is shared by a set of living beings. These living beings are regarded as speculative objects beyond an idea of the world, i.e. as objects of the experimental science. A question about ontology of taxon as a class refers to the scholastic problem of universalia; its status can be defined within the scope of the nominalism/realism opposition. Taxon as a place of common appearance of the specimens is regarded in the context of the etiological relations unifying various entities into the entire world. Taxon as a place refers to a certain position in the Natural System that is construed as an etiological map of the world. In this case a specimen of a living being is known as a curiosity, i.e. representant of its relationships as well as of the place of its origin. Ontological status of a taxon as a place is to be clarified within the framework of the natural/artificial opposition. The positing of a taxon as a collective body marked off by limits of joint survival of living beings is characteristic for biology in the strict sense which arose in the very beginning of the 19 century. A taxon as a body established by the techniques of disciplinary power sensu M. Foucault extended from the human bodies to bodies of other living beings. The ontological status of a taxon as a collective body can be defined within the scope of the wild/domesticated opposition. Therefore, the discrepancy between the universality of the taxon concept and the plurality of its interpretations is underlayed by interpenetration of three distinct modi of taxon establishing. Distinguishing between these three modi can clarify sources of ontological problems concerned with the term taxon in each case when they arise. (shrink)

Since the turn of the century, however, a double upheaval has occurred, the formulation of the quantum theory and the theory of relativity, providing the ground for the development of modern physics. These theories issued from the problems of light that, in their strict forms, could not be assimilated by Newtonian physics. Before the turn of the century the wave theory had been victorious over the emission theory, and an hypothetical ether was assumed which was intended ultimately to represent (...) absolute space and to play a role similar to that of Anaximander's apeiron or Aristotle's prima materia. This last role seemed required since many philosophers of nature believed that they should see in matter and its elementary components the singularities, the exceptional peculiarities of the ether. However, since the ether held itself strictly incognito, Albert Einstein renounced it and declared that all systems in uniform, rectilinear motion are equivalent. The first portentous ontological consequence of this renunciation was that statements concerning spatial and temporal separation become relative. True relativity means, however, that objectivity and subjectivity enter equally into all statements, for to everything relative, as Max Planck once said, an absolute belongs. In this case the absolute was the combination of space and time into a four-dimensional spatio-temporal unity, which observers in different systems split into different space and time determinations. Our statements concerning space and time are thus neither merely subjective nor merely objective; rather a subject-object relation enters into them and makes them all relative. There is, to be sure, within the four-dimensional spatio-temporal unity a region of a spatial type within which the space-axes of the different observers lie, and the same is true for the temporal region. But even if there is no one universal time or simultaneity, temporality nevertheless plays its own role in contradistinction to spatiality, though both are expressible mathematically. We can say in the sense of critical realism that our spatial and temporal measurements are commensurate with the ordering relations of things and events. (shrink)

Рассматривается вопрос онтологии теорий струн, связанных между собой преобразованиями дуальности. Дуальные теории определяются как теории, которые являются инстанциациями одного и того же витгенштейновского правила – понятие, извлекаемое из философии позднего Витгенштейна. Дуальные теории как различные употребления, или аспекты, некоторого общего правила (нормы), рассматриваются как относящиеся к исключающим друг друга контекстам, между которыми, однако, устанавливается связь в рамках более широкого контекста – контекста оценки, то есть контекста самой дуальности. Онтология контекстуальна – каждая теория струн имеет свою онтологию в своём собственном контексте (...) – и, соответственно, плюралистична, но в контексте оценки существует единственная онтология, определяемая общим правилом – дуальностью (М-теорий). В рамках предлагаемой позиции контекстуального реализма и плюрализма проблема эмпирической недоопределённости теории не возникает. Не возникают также проблемы, с которыми сталкивается метафизический плюрализм при рассмотрении дуальных теорий: проблема теоретической сверхдетерминации и проблема онтологической фрагментации мира. ISBN-13: 978-620-2-66939-9 . (shrink)

The Aristotelian double characterization of a primary substanceexploits the difference between the part-whole relation and the non-linguisticrelation of predication. A problem arises whether and how the second relationcould be reduced to something else. Such a reduction is explicitly declared orat least implicitly assumed in all version of conceptualism and nominalism.The moderate realism is often interpreted as a reductionism of this kindbut such interpretations do not seem corect. Only the so called resemblancetheory can be regarded as a successful attempt at the (...) reduction in question.However, it seems that the predication per se cannot be disposed of even inthis way. If so, then the nature of the relation of predication still waits fora precise analysia and description. This would provide an insight into theessence of a universal being. (shrink)

If there is one question which stands forth pre-eminently from among the many problems with which physical science bristles, it is that of the ontological status of the world which physics is exploring. What is reality in the eyes of science, and what are we to understand the physicist to mean when he refers to the “real world”? Can we agree with him when he assures us that physical science represents a progress towards pure truth? There seems to (...) be a certain reluctance on the part of twentieth-century physicists to face the ontological question which I think their colleagues of the nineteenth century did not share to the same extent. (shrink)

Professor Quine in recent articles has raised an old question, an ontological one, concerning the status of universals. It is interesting to note that the same positions recur in symbolic logic that have appeared so often in the past in less exact language. There can be little doubt that the question he raises is crucial; and if the issue is not yet settled, there is at least some hope that it may be clarified. Propositions are required to make propositions (...) clear. (shrink)

Dustin McWherter defends the possibility of critical ontology by pitting Roy Bhaskar's attempt to rehabilitate ontology in the philosophy of science against Kant's attempt to replace traditional ontology with an account of cognitive experience.

In this essay the author argues that an ontological problem of a work of art, one of the long-standing problems of the philosophy of art, is merely an apparent one. The author argues that it in fact comprises two particular, different problems. The first is the question of how the thing being described in aesthetic terms exists, whether the aesthetic and physical description of a thing are so different, indeed disparate, that they cannot – as some philosophers (...) of art assume – relate to the same thing. The second problem is the question of how a work of a multiple art can exist, whether we can identify it with the individual act of performing or using this work. The first problem, argues the author, stems from the erroneous assumption that the disparateness of the aesthetic and physical description of a thing leads to the conclusion that the object of aesthetic description must exist differently from the way a physical description exists. The second problem emerges from a lack of understanding of how we use the term “work of art,” when we use it for a work of multiple art. The author also criticizes simultaneous attempts by Arthur Danto and Joseph Margolis, two leading philosophers of art, to solve the ontological problem of the work of art. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to find out the possibility of overcoming the problem of modern philosophy which is represented by the identity philosophy by the problem of 'difference' in Merleau - Ponty 's ‘Body - Flesh Ontology’. In particular, we will note that although Merleau-Ponty's philosophy is still phenomenology, it is distinguished from Husserl's phenomenology and very important. So Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology is the phenomenology of phenomenology and the ‘Body-Flesh Ontology’. Therefore, the problem of 'subject' arises here. Merleau-Ponty finds (...) subjectivity in the body rather than in reason. A body must have individuality, and subjectivity can also be established. The subject can not deny the relationship because it is the subject. The body has identity as a body - subject and communicates with the world. The world is a co-world of body-subjects. Merleau-Ponty therefore explains ontologically the flesh as an ontological foundation upon which body-subjects can have individuality. Flesh is the source of life and fundamental chapter. It is because these bodies are the world bodies that each body can directly contact. Therefore, each body is explained as ‘intercorporéité’, and eventually ‘intercorporéité’ will be confirmed as the foundation of ‘intersubjectivité’. This study suggests that Merleau - Ponty 's body phenomenology and flesh ontology are on a continuous line, and that Merleau - Ponty' s philosophy is ‘Body - Flesh Ontology’. (shrink)

Andrews et al. claim that Gould and Lewontin's critique of adaptationism is largely epistemological rather than ontological. In this commentary I argue that, on the contrary, the deepest part of their critique is ontological, raising concerns about the existence of the traits that are the subjects of adaptationist theorising. Andrews et al.'s failure to address this problem undermines their defence of adaptationism.

This is a translation of Nicolai Hartmann’s article “Der Megarische und der Aristotelische Möglichkeitsbegriff: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ontologischen Modalitätsproblems,” first published in 1937. In this article, Hartmann defends an interpretation of the Megarian conception of possibility, which found its clearest form in Diodorus Cronus’ expression of it and according to which “only what is actual is possible” or “something is possible only if it is actual.” Hartmann defends this interpretation against the then dominant Aristotelian conception of possibility, based (...) on the opposition between dynamis and energeia, and according to which there is always an open multiplicity of simultaneous “possibilities,” the outcome of which remains undetermined. Since, according to Hartmann, reality suffers no indetermination, the Megarian conception of possibility is an account of real possibility, whereas the Aristotelian one is merely an account of epistemic possibility. (shrink)

이 글의 목표는 하이데거가 『존재와 시간』에서 전개한 기초존재론이 어떻게 방법론적 정당화라는 과제에 부응할 수 있는지를 고찰하는 것이다. 일부 선행 연구가 보여준 바와 같이 기초존재론의 탐구는 탐구자 스스로 실존의 본래성에서 착수할 때만 정당성을 얻을 수 있다. 그러나 실존의 본래성만으로 기초존재론의 정당성 문제가 해결되는 것은 아니다. 나는 실존의 본래성 외에도, 해석학적 순환에 따라서 하나의 해석이 더 고차적인 해석 단계에서 성공적으로 재해석될 때 내적인 검증이 이루어진다는 사실 그리고 본래적 공동존재에서 해석학적 순환이 “상호주관적으로” 확장된다는 사실이 기초존재론의 방법론적 정당화에 이바지한다는 것을 보이고자 한다. 끝으로 하이데거의 (...) 기초존재론이 실존의 본래성에 의존한다는 점에서 그 정당성 규준을 사적 영역으로 돌린다고 비판하는 몇몇 논평에 대하여 그러한 비판이 실존의 본래성 외에 해석학적 순환에 의한 내적 검증이나 본래적 공동존재에서의 상호적 검증과 같은 기초존재론의 또 다른 방법론적 계기를 간과하고 있다고 지적할 것이다. (shrink)

The central task of cognitive neuroscience to map cognitive capacities to neural mechanisms faces three interlocking conceptual problems that together frame the problem of cognitive ontology. First, they must establish which tasks elicit which cognitive capacities, and specifically when different tasks elicit the same capacity. To address this operationalization problem, scientists often assess whether the tasks engage the same neural mechanisms. But to determine whether mechanisms are of the same or different kinds, we need to solve the abstraction problem (...) by determining which mechanistic differences are and are not relevant, and also the boundary problem by distinguishing the mechanism from its background conditions. Solving these problems, in turn, requires understanding how cognitive capacities are elicited in tasks. These three problems, which have been noted and discussed elsewhere in the literature, together form a ‘cycle of kinds’ that frames the central problem-space of cognitive ontology. We describe this cycle to clarify the intellectual challenges facing the cognitive ontologist and to reveal the kind of iterative process by which ontological revision in cognitive neuroscience is likely to unfold. (shrink)

I argue for an idealist ontology consistent with empirical observations, which seeks to explain the facts of nature more parsimoniously than physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism. This ontology also attempts to offer more explanatory power than both physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism, in that it does not fall prey to either the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ or the ‘subject combination problem’, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: spatially unbound consciousness is posited to be nature’s sole ontological primitive. We, as well (...) as all other living organisms, are dissociated alters of this unbound consciousness. The universe we see around us is the extrinsic appearance of phenomenality surrounding—but dissociated from—our alter. The living organisms we share the world with are the extrinsic appearances of other dissociated alters. As such, the challenge to artificially create individualized consciousness becomes synonymous with the challenge to artificially induce abiogenesis. (shrink)

We examine to what extent an adequate ontology of technical artefacts can be based on existing general accounts of the relation between higher-order objects and their material basis. We consider two of these accounts: supervenience and constitution. We take as our starting point the thesis that artefacts have a ‘dual nature’, that is, that they are both material bodies and functional objects. We present two criteria for an adequate ontology of artefacts, ‘Underdetermination’ and ‘Realizability Constraints’ , which address aspects of (...) the dual nature thesis. Assessing supervenience accounts, we find them either wanting with respect to these criteria or insufficiently informative. Next, we argue that a recent application of Lynne Rudder Baker’s constitution view to artefacts cannot meet our criteria, although the broader view leaves room for improvement. Based on our evaluation of the most promising candidates, we conclude that so far general metaphysical views fail to address the most salient features of artefacts. Although they can account for the fact that artefacts have a ‘dual nature’, they do not offer the conceptual resources needed to describe the relation between these natures; this relation raises a hard problem in metaphysics.Keywords: Metaphysics; Artefact; Supervenience; Constitution; Underdetermination. (shrink)

A bewildering array of accounts of the ontology of musical works is available. Philosophers have held that works of music are sets of performances, abstract, eternal sound-event types, initiated types, compositional action types, compositional action tokens, ideas in a composer’s mind and continuants that perdure. This paper maintains that questions in the ontology of music are, in Rudolf Carnap’s sense of the term, pseudo-problems. That is, there is no alethic basis for choosing between rival musical ontologies. While we have (...) no alethic basis for choosing any ontology of music, pragmatic reasons can be given for favoring certain ontologies of musical works over others. (shrink)

The problem of the relation and difference between things and objects is one of the most decisive issues for the conception of the real. These words are usually used interchangeably – and not only in their everyday usage. There are some contemporary philosophical positions that consider almost “everything” as an object; on the other hand, there are proponents of a strict separation of objects and things. How did it happen that the concept of thing (res) and object (obiectum) not only (...) began to theoretically “compete” with each other but also sometimes came to represent differently conceived realities, and even occasionally came to represent an identical conception of reality? This article, on the one hand, discusses the philosophical strategies that reveal the difference between objects and things and enable such a conception of reality which takes into account the Kantian distinction between Realität and Wirklichkeit. On the other, it reconstructs Giorgio Agamben’s project of modal ontology. Agamben’s take on the question What is real? is oriented toward the modus of being and could be traced back to the recognition of the difference between objects and things as well as the “restoration of the life of things themselves.”. (shrink)

The question of how to interpret spontaneous collapse theories of quantum mechanics is an open one. One issue involves what link one should use to go from wave function talk to talk of ordinary macroscopic objects. Another issue involves whether that link should be taken ontologically seriously. In this paper, I ague that the link should be taken ontologically seriously; I argue against an ontology consisting solely of the wave function. I then consider three possible links: the fuzzy link, the (...) accessible mass density link, and the mass density simpliciter link. I show that the first two links have serious anomalies which render them unacceptable. I show that the mass density simpliciter link, in contrast, is viable. (shrink)

This paper is an exposition and comparison between two views concerning fundamental ontology in the context of the Mind-Body Problem: physicalism and emergent property dualism. I assess the pros and cons of each position and argue that physicalism provides an overall more plausible metaphysics.

I argue for an idealist ontology consistent with empirical observations, which seeks to explain the facts of nature more parsimoniously than physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism. This ontology also attempts to offer more explanatory power than both physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism, in that it does not fall prey to either the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ or the ‘subject combination problem’, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: spatially unbound consciousness is posited to be nature’s sole ontological primitive. We, as well (...) as all other living organisms, are dissociated alters of this unbound consciousness. The universe we see around us is the extrinsic appearance of phenomenality surrounding—but dissociated from—our alter. The living organisms we share the world with are the extrinsic appearances of other dissociated alters. As such, the challenge to artificially create individualized consciousness becomes synonymous with the challenge to artificially induce abiogenesis. (shrink)

What is a physical object according to the theory of quantum mechanics? The first answer to be considered is that given by Bohr in terms of the concept of complementarity. This interpretation is illustrated by way of an example, the two slit experiment, which highlights some of the associated problems of ontology. One such problem is the so-called problem of measurement or observation. Various interpretations of measurement in Quantum Theory, including those of Heisenberg, von Neumann, Everett and Bohr, are (...) compared and contrasted. A second problem concerns whether or not QT can be considered complete and therefore satisfactory as a basis for physics. Various attempts to complete QT by means of the addition of ‘hidden variables’ to the quantum mechanical state function are considered and their aims and achievements assessed. Finally, we investigate some of the characteristic ontological problems for the orthodox interpretation of Relativistic Quantum Theory. -/- . (shrink)

The article is devoted to the problem of social exist- ence normativity. In the comparative analysis of the philosophy of law, humanities and social studies, the foundations of the ontological rootedness of the norm in human existence have been evidently found. The hypothesis of the study is that the norm is not a special way of regulating behavior, but is the main form of human existence. The ontological nature of the norm outside the semantic aspect of its individual (...) manifestations is revealed. For this purpose, the basis of the analysis is determined by the Decalogue, where for the first time an attempt was made to consolidate the “pure” norm. It is shown that the norm is born in the dialectic of pro- hibition and obligation in the reflexive processes of actions of a social subject. An attempt is made to comprehensively analyze the normativity of social existence. (shrink)

Object-oriented ontologists understand relations of cause and effect to be sensory or aesthetic in nature, not involving direct interaction between objects. Four major arguments are used to defend an indirect view of causation: 1) that there are analogies between perception and causation, 2) that the indirect view can account for cases of causation which a direct view cannot, 3) an Occasionalist argument that direct interaction would make causation impossible, and 4) that the view simply fits better with object-oriented ontology’s own (...) premises. However, each argument is fallacious or otherwise unconvincing. The first affirms the consequent. The second fails because the relevant cases can easily be accounted for with a direct view. The third makes false assumptions about the relation between parts and wholes. And the fourth can also be used to argue against object-oriented ontology. Many of these problems can be traced to the methodological aspects of object-oriented ontology and might be avoided by emphasizing the role of non-argumentative justification in metaphysics. (shrink)

According to K. McDaniel’s and J. Turner’s Ontological Pluralism, there are many ways of being that are more fundamental than being in general. In this paper, I shall analyze some constraints on this doctrine. Among other, ontological pluralists are committed to the idea that there are no things that have no way of being at all and that it is not legitimate to quantify over ways of being. Later on, I shall introduce a problem for ontological pluralism: (...) if there is a privileged way of being an ontological pluralist, then, given those constraints, ontological pluralists cannot logically express that privileged way. Finally, I shall justify the acceptance of a Half-Meinongian solution to this problem, that is roughly grounded on the acceptance of entities that have no way of being at all. (shrink)

Thomasson’s easy ontology approach (2015) aims at deflating existence questions through a revival of Carnap’s (1950) distinction between internal and external questions. Importantly, her account depends on an analysis of the ordinary meaning of ‘exist(s)’ as a second-order predicate. I do two things in this paper. First, I show that Thomasson’s analysis fails to do justice to the complexity of the English predicate ‘exist(s)’. Against Thomasson, I argue that there are cases in which ‘exist(s)’ functions as a first-order predicate. Because (...) these cases were first noted by P.F. Strawson (1967), I will call them ‘Strawson-cases’. Secondly, I argue that these counterexamples give some support to (i) more substantive theories about existence as well as (ii) accounts that treat ‘exist(s)’ as varying in meaning. (shrink)