Ontological Categories

In this talk, I propose a new account of ontological form, formal ontological relations, modes of being and hence of specifying the subject matter of metaphysics.

There is an emerging view according to which countability is not an integral part of the lexical meaning of singular count nouns, but is ‘added on’ or ‘made available’, whether syntactically, semantically or both. This view has been pursued by Borer and Rothstein among others in order to deal with classifier languages such as Chinese as well as challenges to standard views of the mass-count distinction such as object mass nouns such as furniture. I will discuss a range of data, (...) partly from German, that such a grammar-based view of countability receives support when applied to verbs with respect to the event argument position. Verbs themselves fail to specify events as countable in English and related languages; instead countability is made available only by the use of the event classifier time or else particular lexical items, such as frequency expressions, German beides ‘both’, or the nominalizing light noun -thing. The paper will not adopt or elaborate a particular version of the grammar-based view of countability, but rather critically discuss existing versions and present two semantic options of elaborating the view. (shrink)

This paper argues that for the Stoics, existence (einai, to on, ousia) is the ontological status of bodies, and subsistence (hupostasis, huphistanai) is the ontological status of the incorporeals (place, void, time, and the lekta, or sayables), while obtaining (huparxis, huparchein) is not an ontological status at all — hence I italicize the first two, and not the last. All the incorporeals are said to subsist, but only true lekta and the present time are said to obtain, in contrast not (...) only to false lekta and the past and future, but also in contrast to the other incorporeals, which are never said to obtain. Matters are complicated by the fact that “huparxis” and “huparchein” have ordinary language senses of existing and of being actual. But given the Stoics’ technical use of the most common verb, “to be,” to signal the ontological status of bodies, there is reason to think that “huparchein” is also used in a technical sense. And given that the term is applied only to true lekta and the present time, there is reason to think not only that this technical sense is not the ontological status of all the incorporeals, but that it is not an ontological status or mode of being at all. It is, rather, a relation to the world as it is. When the present time is said to obtain, this is not an alternative to the subsistence of time, but a correspondence to the world as (i.e. when) it is unfolding. And when a lekton is true and therefore obtains, it is not getting actualized or coming to exist, but corresponding to the world as (i.e. in the manner that) it is — just as one would expect from the Stoics’ correspondence theory of truth. Thus the incorporeals all have just the one mode of being or ontological status, subsistence, and only bodies exist. (shrink)

Property dualism posits one kind of substance (physical), but two kinds of properties: physical and mental. The view has been criticized for either collapsing into substance dualism or enjoying no distinctive advantage over it. We wield a similar criticism, but our argument has a unique spin: we scrutinize what it could mean for a property to count as mental given different conceptions of the relation between substance and property. We consider various versions of universal realism and trope theory and argue (...) that they either render property dualism incoherent or saddle it with commitments that undermine its initial motivation. (shrink)

Substance dualism is the view that there are two fundamentally different kinds of substances: physical and mental. By contrast, according to property dualism there is only one kind of substance (physical) but two fundamentally different kinds of properties: physical and mental. Property nominalism is the view that there are neither repeatable nor non-repeatable fundamentally predicable entities (i.e. neither universals nor tropes) and that things being a certain way or being related in a certain way must ultimately be accounted for in (...) terms of concrete particulars. In this paper, we consider a number of different kinds of property nominalism and argue that none of them sits well with property dualism. We pay special attention to the question of what it could mean for a property to count as mental given different nominalistic accounts of properties. Our conclusion is that property nominalism and property dualism are not a stable match. This is surprising, since property dualism has usually been understood as a thesis that is neutral about the nature of fundamental ontological categories and the relation between them. (shrink)

What the Sorites has to tell us is a simple truth regarding our categories. It appears to saddle us with something other than a simple truth—something worse, a contradiction or a problem or a paradox—only when we insist on viewing it through a discrete logic of categories. Discrete categories and discrete logic are for robots. We aren’t robots, and the simple truth is that we don’t handle categories in the way any discrete logic would demand. For us non-robots, what the (...) Sorites has to offer is a straightforward truth regarding how incapable robots and their logic are of handling categories like ours. (shrink)

In this paper, I first argue for a relational account of the concept of ontological form and its difference from being. The former is explicated by the concepts of character-neutral internal relation and existence or being and that the ontological forms of entities consist in these formal ontological relations in which the entities stand. Secondly, I apply this account to ontological categories and their membership-determination, existence and reality. Here I also defend a relational view that categories are construed as pluralities (...) of entities standing in the same formal ontological relations in the same order. Formal ontological relations are not additional entities to their relata because they are internal relations. Therefore, categories do not exist as entities numerically distinct from their members. Yet their membership is determined by formal ontological relations actually holding among entities. My accounts are nominalist since ontological forms and categories are not universal or general entities of any sort. (shrink)

Wiredu uses the term ‘empiricalism’ to characterize a mode of thinking that is essentially empirical in orientation but admits non-transcendental metaphysical categories and existents into its systems of thought. Wiredu finds evidence of this mode of thinking in the Akan language. The central question I engage with in this paper is this: what makes empiricalism a plausible system of thought that has universal validity and intelligibility? I argue that the plausibility and universality of empiricalism is evident in Wiredu’s logical and (...) semantic thinking that underpins the theses of empiricalism. Rather than it being an isolated doctrine of Wiredu, the central theses of empiricalism are rooted in, and cast in terms of, his logical and semantic analysis of distinctions such as signification and reference, concept and object, and of his analysis of terms such as ‘existence’. These analyses show that the attractiveness of empiricalism is dependent on theoretical principles other than, and in addition to, the linguistic evidence that Akan provides. (shrink)

This paper will propose a novel semantic and syntactic analysis of stative verbs, more specifically abstract state verbs like 'need', 'believe', 'know', 'own', 'owe', and 'lack'. On that analysis, such verbs have an underlying structure on which they are complex predicates consisting of the light verb HAVE and a noun for a trope-like thing (a trope or attitudinal, modal or intensional object), a structure that is also input to semantic interpretation. Thus, 'need a coat' is underlyingly 'have need (of) a (...) coat'. The analysis accounts for restrictions on adverbial modifiers of abstract states verbs and surprising constraints on explicit property-referring terms, NPs of the sort the property of needing a coat. The paper advocates a notion of a property that is fundamentally different from the notions familiar from the philosophical literature (natural, non-natural properties, abundant, sparse properties). It also suggests that that notion of a property is as innate as constraints of universal grammar, given a generative perspective. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: I argue that Sellars’s metaconceptual theory of the categories exemplifies and extends a long line of nominalistic thinking about the nature of the categories from Ockham and Kant to the Tractatus and Carnap, and that this theory is far more central than has generally been realized to each of Sellars’s most famous and enduring philosophical conceptions: the myth of the given, the logical space of reasons, and resolving the ostensible clash between the manifest and scientific images of the human (...) being in the world. Sellars’s distinctive contribution to this longstanding (if currently on the defensive) metaconceptual approach to the nature of ontological categories was to interpret and reconstruct it in terms of his own ‘meaning as use’ or norm-governed inferential role semantics. With these resources Sellars sought to preserve the genuine insights in the ‘realist’ or broadly platonic traditions while simultaneously defending the idea that in the end, as he puts it, “a naturalistic ontology must be a nominalistic ontology” (1980a NAO IV §129). (shrink)

Facts (and, more generally, states of affairs) are plausibly individuated in an at least moderately coarse-grained way: the fact that this rose is red should not be distinguished from the fact that this rose fails to fail to be red. Something similar can be said for properties and relations. It is relatively easy to formulate principles that entail that the individuation of states of affairs, properties, and relations—in brief, intensional entities—is coarse-grained enough to conform to this idea. It is less (...) easy to devise a complementary principle that imposes an *upper* bound on the coarse-grainedness of intensional entities. A promising approach to this problem is to formulate a principle according to which the *fundamental* entities (including fundamental properties and relations) are freely recombinable or ‘logically independent’; but certain special provisions that have to be made with regard to relations tend to render such a principle unattractively complex. In this paper I put forward a simpler principle, based on a broadly positionalistic conception of relations. (shrink)

A model of metaphysics associated with EJ Lowe and Tuomas Tahko sees metaphysics as involving a priori knowledge of possible essences, or at least modal facts, and delimiting the actual ‘ontological categories,’ the ultimate and essential divisions of what exists, based on the results of a posteriori scientific investigation. Their approach to metaphysics has been criticized by those who argue that such metaphysics is unsuitably a priori, disconnected with empirical research in natural science, and ends up failing to provide meaningful (...) constraints on metaphysical theorization. I present different epistemological and semantic worries about these accounts to motivate an alternative perspective on which metaphysics centers on form, rather than possibility. This scholastic perspective is shown to incorporate the skeptical insights as constitutive of its approach to existence, by way of the position that ‘being’ is not a genus. Rather, ‘being’ is a determinable. The scholastic approach can thus provide responses to the skeptics, since it denies that ontological categories – in the Lowe/Tahko sense – are what metaphysicians investigate and proposes a different view of ontological categories as classes of forms. (shrink)

Contemporary metaphysics, and especially neo‐Aristotelian metaphysics, tackles many of the same problems as Avicenna did. One of these problems is the possibility of substantial kind change. For instance, is it possible for an animal to change its species? Aristotle and Avicenna both regarded species to be eternal, but their metaphysics might allow for individuals to change their kinds—what is important is that one kind cannot change into another kind. From a contemporary perspective, this may seem odd, given what we know (...) about the evolution of species. Moreover, phenomena like beta decay seem to suggest that a given sample of an element may change into another element, so one might think that contemporary science allows both changing kinds and substantial kind change. Yet, I suggest that the essentialist metaphysics that has developed from Aristotle to neo‐Aristotelian metaphysics, via Avicenna, may already possess the necessary tools to accommodate all this. (shrink)

This paper defends Natural Kind Fundamentalism (NKF), the view that the ontological category of natural kind is fundamental. I develop a primitivist account of categorial fundamentality based on the Complete Categorial Basis (CCB) criterion, which requires that fundamental categories form a complete and minimal system irreducible to other categories through ontological dependence relations. I argue against bundle-theoretic reductions and in favour of the view that natural kinds are substantial universals serving as principles of unity for property clusters. This framework distinguishes (...) between the metaphysical ‘why’ question (answered by substantial universals as unifiers) and the empirical ‘how’ question (concerning specific unification mechanisms). I demonstrate that natural kinds and properties exhibit mutual but asymmetric dependence: properties depend generically on kinds for instantiation, while kinds depend rigidly on their essential properties. The resulting formal ontological structure satisfies the CCB criterion and explains why certain property clusters are non-arbitrary without reducing kinds to properties or vice versa. (shrink)

Call metaphysicians who think that chains of ontological dependence must terminate in a collection of fundamental entities "foundationalists". Call metaphysicians who think that chains of being can proceed ad infinitum "infinitists". Foundationalists claim that foundationalism displays certain theoretical advantages over infinitism. First, some maintain that infinitism has a special explanatory problem that foundationalism doesn’t. Second, others maintain that foundationalism exhibits greater theoretical unity than infinitism. I argue that these considerations give us no reason to prefer foundationalism to infinitism. Against the (...) foundationalist’s first purported advantage, I argue that foundationalists must make theoretical concessions similar to those infinitists must make (§1). And against the foundationalist’s second purported advantage – an advantage infinitists haven’t yet addressed – I argue that infinitism exhibits a different, but nevertheless attractive, kind of theoretical virtue; namely, infinitists explain all existence facts in similar ways (§2). I conclude that foundationalism and infinitism are, at worst, on a theoretical par (§3). (shrink)

We introduce a framework for representing information about entities that do not exist or may never exist, such as those involving fictional entities, blueprints, simulations, and future scenarios. Traditional approaches that introduce “dummy instances” or rely on modal logic are criticized, and a proposal is defended in which the cases in question are modeled using the intersections of actual types rather than specific non-existent tokens. The paper positions itself within the Basic Formal Ontology paradigm and its realist commitments, emphasizing the (...) importance of practical, implementable solutions over purely metaphysical or philosophical proposals. We argue that existing approaches to non-existent entities either overcommit to metaphysical assumptions or introduce computational inefficiencies that hinder applications. By developing a structured ontology-driven approach to unreal patterns, the paper aims to provide a useful and computationally viable means of handling references to hypothetical or non-existent entities. (shrink)

This monograph presents a unified mechanical ontology that replaces the continuum assumptions of 20th century physics with a discrete, deterministic framework grounded in the CIRHE engine—the Cyclic Information Refining Heat Engine. At the foundation of this ontology is the Discrete Gravitational Flux Field, a substantive medium composed of fixed wavelength Planck scale units and governed by an inelastic repulsive force that establishes the hardware constraints of the universe. The invariant space–time ratio tₚ = Lₚ / c defines the minimum update (...) interval of the substrate and serves as the generator of all physical processes. In Version 5, this ratio is elevated to the status of the substrate clock: the universal hardware tick that governs every allowable oscillation, transition, and interaction. All internal oscillations must occur on integer subdivisions of this tick, producing the quantized frequency spectrum fₙ = 1 / (n tₚ). The integer n is the update mode index, a mechanical label identifying the allowable internal oscillation modes of any system. This architecture introduces a repulsive frequency ceiling—a maximum allowable oscillation rate enforced by the substrate’s finite update capacity—and a bandwidth saturation limit that produces the electroweak lock. By rejecting the geometric abstraction of space as a non substantive void, this work reconstructs the fundamental concepts of physics as mechanical processes occurring within a discrete flux field. Time is redefined as the throughput of relational change across the flux medium. Motion is the propagation of state updates through a finite resolution lattice. The Equivalence Principle emerges from flux displacement, pressure gradients, and the mechanical identity between inertia and gravitation enforced by adjacency limited update exchange. In Version 4, these processes are further constrained by the update mode architecture: energy becomes the traversal rate through n indexed internal modes, mass becomes the flux compression cost of maintaining a given mode, and charge becomes a bandwidth allocation property tied to torsional update patterns. Within the CIRHE framework, the constants of nature are evolutionary parameters shaped by information retention across cosmological cycles. Black hole interiors function as the universe’s only high fidelity storage medium, preserving low entropy structural information in a saturated, compression limited lattice that seeds each new cycle. This mechanism resolves the information paradox, eliminates singularities, and provides a mechanical basis for the hierarchy of forces. Version 4 adds the discrete quantum architecture: the tick based Schrödinger update rule Ψₙ₊₁ = Ψₙ − i (tₚ/ħ) H_lat Ψₙ, the finite difference Laplacian, and the mechanical meaning of ψ as a distributed compression pattern rather than a probability amplitude. The particle always occupies a definite node; the wave is the mechanical influence field that propagates through the substrate. The Discrete Flux Ontology establishes a coherent, closed, and internally consistent foundation from which all subsequent physical behavior follows deterministically. It provides a mechanical explanation for time, motion, mass, gravity, and cosmological evolution, replacing probabilistic interpretations with a systems engineering model grounded in discrete hardware, finite update capacity, and thermodynamic optimization. Version 5 completes this foundation by introducing the substrate clock, the quantized frequency spectrum, the update mode progression, the repulsive frequency ceiling, and the discrete quantum update rules. These elements unify the ontology’s treatment of mechanics, quantum behavior, and field interactions under a single Planck based hardware architecture. (shrink)

One of the main ontological challenges posed by quantum mechanics is the problem of the indistinguishability of so-called “identical” particles, that is, particles that share the same state-independent properties. In the framework of this philosophical problem, a quasi-set theory was formulated to provide a proper metalanguage to deal with quantum indistinguishability; this theory included certain Urelemente called m-atoms, representing essentially indistinguishable objects. In turn, over the last two decades, the Modal Hamiltonian Interpretation proposed an ontology of properties, totally devoid of (...) objects, where quantum systems are bundles of instances of universal properties. Therefore, the original quasi-set theory, with its m-atoms, does not adequately reflect the structure of an ontology devoid of objects. The purpose to the present article is to introduce a new quasi-set theory that does not include atoms at all: elementary items correspond to properties and are also represented by quasi-sets, which can be only numerically different. The final aim is to apply this new quasi-set theory to the MHI ontology. (shrink)

This paper argues that ontological category systems (OCS) should be assessed against explicit target criteria. To compare the highly diverse OCS, we focus on the epistemic issue of the category problem, not on the ontological one, and examine the system architecture at the bicategorical level. From existing systems we extract mutual exclusiveness, exhaustiveness, and generalness, and add a neglected criterion: recursiveness – the requirement that, at themost general level, the categories also categorize themselves, thereby conceptually closing the system. On this (...) basis we motivate the most defensible number of categories and re-evaluate the traditional divide between universals and particulars in a slightly revised form. The resulting framework clarifies how OCS can remain maximally general while retaining classificatory power and shows why systems that exceed two top-level categories trade generalness for individuation without clear gain. (shrink)

Neo-Aristotelian metaphysics comprises the topics in contemporary metaphysics which bear similarity to the interests, commitments, positions and general approaches found in Aristotle. Despite the current interest in these topics, there is no monograph length general introduction to the methodology and themes of neo-Aristotelian metaphysics. One underdiscussed question concerns demarcation: what unifies the topics that fall under the heading of neo-Aristotelianism? Contemporary metaphysicians who might be classified as ‘neo-Aristotelians’ tend towards positions reminiscent of Aristotle’s metaphysics—such as sympathy with grounding, substance ontology, (...) non-modal construals of essence, hylomorphism, causal powers, presentism, endurantism and agent causation. However, prima facie it seems that one might hold any one of these positions while rejecting the others. What perhaps unifies a neo-Aristotelian approach in metaphysics, then, is not a shared collection of positions so much as a willingness to engage with Aristotle and to view this historical figure as providing a fruitful way of initially framing certain philosophical issues. However, also missing in the literature is a sustained methodological discussion on the contribution historical scholarship on Aristotle might make to contemporary metaphysics, and the contribution contemporary metaphysics might make to historical scholarship. Little hinges on whether what gets labelled neo-Aristotelian metaphysics is or isn’t Aristotle’s metaphysics. But historical scholarship is useful within contemporary metaphysics not merely to to apply historically accurate labels to positions. There are topics where the historical and contemporary issues dovetail in mutually rewarding ways: serious engagement with the history of philosophy can yield living philosophical rewards for today’s metaphysician; and serious engagement with contemporary philosophy can yield exegetical rewards for the historian. The monograph will introduce these methodological issues, and then turn to case studies on ontological dependence, substance ontology, category theory and hylomorphism. These are all topics where there is robust debate within both Aristotle studies and contemporary metaphysics, and topics where historians and metaphysicians are working somewhat in isolation from each other. The aim of the monograph is to make the relevant exegetical questions accessible to contemporary metaphysicians, and the corresponding contemporary topics accessible to historians. The target audience includes researchers, graduate students and advanced undergraduates, in both metaphysics and Aristotle studies. (shrink)

This article considers Avicenna’s insistence on the disunity between the souls of humans, animals, and plants and the mixed elemental bodies in which they inhere. In particular, it looks at (1) why Avicenna rejects their unity and (2) why this rejection, pace some contemporary scholars, is compatible with the status of these souls as substances. I show that both points derive from the causal role that these souls and the elements play in the coming to be and passing away of (...) mixed elemental bodies. (shrink)

In the field of applied ontology, it is now commonplace to refer to a top-level ontology, and the Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) has even been recognized as an ISO standard. Like other contemporary top-level ontologies, BFO makes use of distinctions that have been developed in philosophy, many of which are already to be found in Aristotele. In this essay, we revisit Aristotele’s metaphysics and discuss the similarities and differences with BFO.

This paper challenges the core assumption that has shaped Western philosophy since Descartes: the primacy of the isolated, self-contained individual. By tracing philosophy's gradual movement away from substance ontology—through phenomenology, existentialism, and feminist care ethics—it reveals how longstanding puzzles arise precisely from attempting to derive connection from an individualist starting point. Against this trajectory, Filipino relational ontology through kapwa (shared being) offers a comprehensive alternative: relationality is primordial, and apparent separateness becomes the phenomenon needing explanation. Drawing on key Filipino concepts (...) such as loob (relational interior), pakikipagkapwa (being-one-with), hiya (relational propriety), and utang na loob (relational debt), the chapter develops a systematic relational ontology in which being itself is constituted through connection. Identity becomes an ongoing relational achievement rather than a pre-given essence; agency operates through—rather than against—embeddedness; knowledge requires participatory engagement; and moral obligation flows from ontological interconnection rather than contract, utility, or abstract rational principle. The resulting permeable, contextually responsive self represents not fragmentation but healthy multiplicity unified through loob, whose authentic expression varies appropriately across relationships. Through this lens, kapwa ontology dissolves problems that Western individualism renders intractable: the connection problem (how separate minds relate), the grounding problem (why individuals should care about others), and the motivation problem (why rational principles should generate ethical commitment). When connection is fundamental rather than derivative, these puzzles cease to arise: obligation becomes ontological, and care for others becomes care for self because we are not ultimately separate. Cross-cultural resonances with African ubuntu, Buddhist dependent origination, and Indigenous relational philosophies further suggest that kapwa articulates a structure closer to universal human experience than Western individualism. The chapter concludes that philosophy's future is relational—not as innovation but as recovery of an ancient insight that modernity temporarily obscured. This relational turn offers not only theoretical clarity but existential healing, countering the deep alienation produced by living as isolated atoms in a world where we are, fundamentally, beings-in-relation. (shrink)

More than almost any other topic in philosophy, the problem of universals has been debated for centuries among the schools of nominalism, conceptualism, and realism. But why do scholars continue to address this issue without reaching consensus? This article argues that the persistence of the problem lies in the existence-centered structure of argumentation, which tends to promote binary responses, and in the fact that the explanatory approaches employed are primarily rooted in classical philosophical traditions. Accordingly, the central element of the (...) debate ‐ existence ‐ is analytically decomposed into emergence and persistence. This shift reveals previously overlooked features of the constitution of universals ‐ namely intersubjectivization, institutionalization, and materialization ‐ thus paving the way for the development of a socio-ontologically informed theory, allowing universals to appear in a new light. (shrink)

Kaplan ([1990]. “Words.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 64: 93–119; [2011]. “Words on Words.” The Journal of Philosophy 108 (9): 504–529) argues that there are no unspoken words. Hawthorne and Lepore ([2011]. “On Words.” The Journal of Philosophy 108 (9): 447–485) put forward examples that purport to show that there can be such words. Here, I argue that Kaplan is correct, if we grant him a minor variation. While Hawthorne and Lepore might be right that there can be unspoken words, (...) I will argue that they fail to show that there can be uninstantiated words. (shrink)

Philosophers frequently draw on natural language to motivate properties, numbers, and propositions as objects, and it is generally taken for granted that abstract objects of this sort are well-reflected in natural language and in fact that reference to them in natural language is pervasive In this paper, I will review and modify in a certain way the view I had advanced in Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language (Moltmann 2013a). This is the view that natural language permits reference (...) to abstract objects only in its periphery, not in its core. Even though reference to abstract objects of the sort of properties, propositions, and numbers is available only in the periphery of language, natural language permits reference to other sorts of abstract objects in its core, in particular abstract artifacts of various sorts. (shrink)

The mass‐count distinction is a morpho‐syntactic distinction among nouns in English and many other languages. Tree, chair, person, group, and portion are count nouns, which come with the plural and accept numerals such as one and first; water, rice, furniture, silverware, and law enforcement are mass nouns, which lack the plural and do not accept numerals. The morpho‐syntactic distinction is generally taken to have semantic content or reflect a semantic mass‐count distinction. At the center of the semantic mass‐count distinction is, (...) in some way or another, a notion of being one or being a single entity, the basis of countability. There is little unanimity, however, of how the notion of being a single entity is to be understood and thus what the semantic mass‐count distinction consists in. The question of the content of the mass‐count distinction and thus the notion of a single object relates to broader philosophical issues, such as the question whether predicates apply to things as such or things under a part‐structure related perspective, the question whether language involves an ontology at an intermediary level distinct from that of reality or even nonlinguistic cognition, and the question whether the semantics of mass nouns requires different logical tools than the ones used in standard semantic analyses (as has been argued for plurals by proponents of plural logics). In what follows, I will give a general presentation of the phenomenon of the mass‐count distinction as well as an outline of current approaches to the mass‐count distinction that ought to be of particular interest to philosophers. The focus will be on very general features and motivations of semantic theories of the mass‐count distinction which lend themselves to more philosophical discussions, rather than the details of the various formal developments. I will mainly discuss extension‐based and integrity‐based approaches, which have been most widely adopted, but which both face significant challenges. I will briefly mention a third approach, the reference‐based approach, whose aim is to overcome those challenges, by taking mass reference to be more primitive than singular and plural reference and not to be reducible to the latter. (shrink)

Introduit par Aristote, le vocabulaire des « catégories » joue un rôle central en philosophie, et figure en bonne place en tant que terme de l’art dans l’artillerie philosophique. Pour autant, ce vocabulaire est l’objet d’interminables débats et soumis à des acceptions fort différentes, à tel point qu’on peut se demander s’il y a, derrière ce vocabulaire, un concept unitaire et opérant de « catégorie ». Révélatrices de l’ameublement du monde, formes a priori de la pensée par concepts, bornes de (...) distinctions logiques saillantes, le statut des catégories est des plus incertains. L’embarras est que ce vocabulaire est toutefois très précieux pour l’argumentation : faire une « erreur de catégorie » semble être un des péchés capitaux de la pensée. L’objet de ce petit livre est de comprendre cette tension, et son objectif de commencer à la décrisper. (shrink)

In ontology, parity arguments hold that because we allow some kind of thing in our ontology, such as snowballs, then for reasons of parity, we should add some similar kind to our ontology, such as a snowcubes, and we should move toward unrestricted composition or modal plenitude. I argue that current parity arguments do not succeed, and I present two challenges for future parity arguments. First, the anchoring objects for parity arguments, such as snowballs, are disproportionately kinds of things that (...) are mind-dependent insofar as the kinds would not exist without mental work. These mind-dependent existence conditions have flown under the radar. If we begin a parity argument with something whose existence is mind-dependent, then we can expand the ontology only with other mind-dependent kinds. With this constraint, we are far from establishing unrestricted composition. So the first challenge is to develop parity arguments that can fill out the ontology with mind-independent kinds. Second, ontologists should anchor parity arguments with more-certain existence claims. For example, the existence of the kind tortoise is more certain than the existence of the kind islands. I argue that there is room for growth in starting with a solid existence claim. By using more-certain existence claims, we increase the strength of the argument and better motivate a conclusion that adds to the ontology rather than subtracts. (shrink)

The social categories to which we belong—Latino, disabled, American, woman— causally influence our lives in deep and unavoidable ways. One might be pulled over by police because one is Latino, or one might receive a COVID vaccine sooner because one is American. Membership in these social categories most often falls outside of our control. This paper argues that membership in social categories constitutes a restriction on human agency, creating a situation of non-ideal agency for many human individuals. However, there are (...) ways to resist the causal influence of social categories, and certain socially marginalized groups can be understood as attempting to do just this. I discuss two instances of social category resistance: gender pronouns and the rights of trans individuals. I suggest that the intentional declaration of gender pronouns (“she/her” or “they/them”) can be understood as an attempt to resist the causal powers of nonconsensual social categorization. Similarly, one among many reasons to support the rights of trans individuals is that their self-declarations of gender identity can be viewed as a reclamation of agency in the face of causal constraints imposed by socially defined and imposed gender categories. This lesson can be generalized to people belonging to a broad range of marginalized groups. (shrink)

Does Anne Conway (1631–79) hold that the created world consists of a single underlying substance? Some have argued that she does; others have argued that she is a priority monist and so holds that there are many created substances, but the whole created world is ontologically prior to each particular creature. Against both of these proposals, this article makes the case for a substance pluralist interpretation of Conway: individual creatures are distinct substances, and the whole created world is not ontologically (...) prior to the individual creatures that compose it. The basic argument for such a view draws on Conway's claims about the freedom and moral responsibility of individual creatures. The pluralist reading is straightforwardly compatible with these claims, while the monistic readings are not. (shrink)

The property theory of musical works is the view that identifies works of music with properties as universals. The purpose of this article is to distinguish different versions of the property theory and argue that none of them can satisfy certain demands we expect from a successful theory of musical works. I conclude that although properties as universals are familiar and useful in other domains, we cannot rely on them to explain the ontological nature of musical works.

Ontologiset kategoriateoriat pyrkivät vastaamaan metafysiikan klassiseen ongelmaan: kysymykseen siitä, mihin eri kategorioihin oliot eli entiteetit jakaantuvat. Olioilla tarkoitetaan tässä mitä tahansa, joka on olemassa. Olevan kategoriat eli ontologiset kategoriat (lyhyesti kategoriat) ovat alustavasti olioiden hyvin yleisiä lajeja. Jäsenyys olioiden kategoriassa ei niinkään kerro sitä, mitä piirteitä oliolla on, vaan sen olemisen tavan ¬– miten se esimerkiksi on tai voi olla maailman rakenneosa. Esimerkkejä mahdollisista kategorioista ovat konkreettiset partikulaariset yksilöoliot (substanssit), ominaisuudet, relaatiot, prosessit, tapahtumat ja joukot. -/- 1. Mitä ovat ontologiset (...) kategoriateoriat -/- 2. Uusaristoteelinen realismi -/- 3. Russellilainen realismi -/- 4. Universaalikimpputeoriat -/- 5. Nominalismi: substanssi-modus-teoriat -/- 6. Trooppiteoriat -/- 7. Jyrkkä nominalismi -/- 8. Tapahtuma- ja prosessiontologiat -/- 9. Ontologisten kategorioiden tutkimus Suomessa -/- 10. Suositeltavaa jatkolukemista -/- 11. Lähteet . (shrink)

According to relationism, for Alice to believe that some rabbits can speak is for Alice to stand in a relation to a further entity, some rabbits can speak. But what could this further entity possibly be? Higher-order metaphysics seems to offer a simple, natural answer. On this view (roughly put), expressions in different syntactic categories (for instance: names, predicates, sentences) in general denote entities in correspondingly different ontological categories. Alice's belief can thus be understood to relate her to a sui (...) generis entity denoted by "some rabbits can speak", belonging to a different ontological category than Alice herself. This straightforward account of the attitudes has historically been deemed so attractive that it was seen as providing an important motivation for higher-order metaphysics itself (Prior [1971]). But I argue that it is not as straightforward as it might seem, and in fact that propositional attitudes present a foundational challenge for higher-order metaphysics. (shrink)

This paper defines relational properties and argues for their reducibility in a, broadly speaking, Armstrongian framework of state of affairs ontology and truthmaking. While Armstrong’s own characterisation and reduction of them arguably is the best one available in the literature of this framework, it suffers from two main problems. As will be shown, it neither defines relational properties very clearly (if at all), nor provides an adequate conception of their reduction. This paper attempts to remedy this situation in four steps. (...) First, it introduces relational properties and why they matter in metaphysics in general. Second, by briefly comparing and contrasting them with extrinsic properties, and by briefly mapping them onto a tripartite division of relations, the particular kinds of relevant relational properties are identified. Third, it classifies relational properties and thereby makes possible an apt definition of them. Finally, using the notion of truthmaking, it outlines a more satisfactory case for their reduction. (shrink)

Ontology – the study of the most fundamental categories of being – lies at the very heart of metaphysics. The reason why it appears to be so central is because it takes on the following questions: What sorts of entities are there? What features do those entities have? How do they relate to one another? And so on. Section 1 of this Element presents a fast-paced historical overview of some of the notable approaches to these questions. Section 2 tells the (...) story of how one of the oldest, most disputed, but also most developed ontological categories – universals – got introduced. Section 3 builds on the discussion of universals as it considers the desiderata for a promising system of ontological categories. And Section 4 looks at ways in which philosophers might break with tradition and explore some new ontological categories. (shrink)

This chapter examines the notion of being in the Consolation of Philosophy and contrasts it with modern notions of existence. The notions in the Consolation relevant to this inquiry are those expressed by the verbs esse and exsistere. The chapter argues that the basic notion of exsistere in the Consolation should be understood as “to be manifest,” while the basic notion of esse should be understood as “to be something or other” or “to be intelligible.” Furthermore, the chapter demonstrates that (...) the notion of esse in the Consolation differs from typical modern notions of existence in two significant ways. First, unlike modern notions of existence, according to which there are things that do not exist, the notion of esse or being in the Consolation has no contrary. Everything that can be spoken of or thought about “is” in some way. Second, the notion of esse in the Consolation, as in Aristotle, is “said in many ways.” In this it differs from modern notions of existence, which tend to be univocal. The chapter shows that once the notions of exsistere and esse are properly understood, certain arguments in the Consolation that might initially appear confused turn out to be quite clear and highly plausible. (shrink)

a cuestión de si la realidad es homogénea o heterogénea es uno de los debates más antiguos de la filosofía occidental y se repite en prácticamente todas las tradiciones filosóficas del mundo. Hay tres motivaciones principales para adoptar una visión heterogénea de la realidad: para dar cuenta de errores categoriales, para resolver paradojas, y para respetar la aparente heterogeneidad de nuestra experiencia, pensamiento y lenguaje. A continuación, revisaremos cada una de ellas, para después ver los principales retos que enfrenta quién (...) quiera defender una visión plural del ser. (shrink)

Best known for his groundbreaking and influential work in Buddhist philosophy, Mark Siderits is the pioneer of “fusion” or “confluence philosophy", a boldly systematic approach to doing philosophy premised on the idea that rational reconstruction of positions in one tradition in light of another can sometimes help address perennial problems and often lead to new and valuable insights. Exemplifying the many virtues of the confluence approach, this collection of essays covers all core areas of Buddhist philosophy, as well as topics (...) and disputes in contemporary Western philosophy relevant to its study. They consider in particular the ways in which questions concerning personal identity figure in debates about agency, cognition, causality, ontological foundations, foundational truths, and moral cultivation. Most of these essays engage Siderits’ work directly, building on his pathbreaking ideas and interpretations. Many deal with issues that have become a common staple in philosophical engagements with traditions outside the West. Their variety and breadth bear testimony to the legacy of Siderits’ impact in shaping the contemporary conversation in Buddhist philosophy and its reverberations in mainstream philosophy, giving readers a clear sense of the remarkable scope of his work. (shrink)

Easy Ontologists, most notably Thomasson (2015), argue that ontological questions are shallow. They think that these questions can either be answered by using our ordinary conceptual competence—of course tables exist!—or are meaningless, or else should be answered through conceptual re-engineering. Ontology thus is “easy”, requiring no distinctively metaphysical investigation. This paper raises a two-stage objection to Easy Ontology. We first argue that questions concerning which entities exist are inextricably bound up with “ontological category questions”, which are questions concerning the identity (...) of and differences between kinds of entities. We then argue that ontological category questions do not have trivial answers, are meaningful, and cannot be answered through conceptual re-engineering. Easy Ontology hence does not constitute a comprehensive ontological methodology. While some of ontology might be easy, category questions form a central part of ontology and are not answered easily. (shrink)

Priority monism is the doctrine that there is exactly one substance: the whole concrete cosmos. This paper develops an objection to priority monism. The objection is that although every substance is necessarily a substance, for the priority monist the cosmos is not necessarily a substance. It follows that the cosmos is not a substance and so priority monism is false. The priority monist's pluralist opponent, I argue, can avoid a parallel objection to her view.

Analytic Philosophy, EarlyView. The method of paraphrasing away apparent ontological commitments is a familiar tool for trimming one's ontology. Even so, I argue that aiming to avoid commitment via paraphrase is unjustified. The reason is the standard motivations for paraphrase rest on implicit yet faulty principles regarding ontological categories and categorization- or so I argue. These results also provide indirect support for a permissivist approach to ontology.

Formal ontology as a main branch of metaphysics investigates categories of being. In the formal ontological approach to metaphysics, these ontological categories are analysed by ontological forms. This analysis, which we illustrate by some category systems, provides a tool to assess the clarity, exactness and intelligibility of different category systems or formal ontologies. We discuss critically different accounts of ontological form in the literature. Of ontological form, we propose a character- neutral relational account. In this metatheory, ontological forms of entities (...) are their standings in internal relations whose holding is neutral on the character of their relata. These relations are “formal ontological relations”. Entities belong to ontological categories because they stand in the same formal ontological relations. We hold a nominalist relationalism about ontological categories and forms. We conclude by showing that our metatheory is useful for understanding categorial fundamentality/non- fundamentality, different formal ontologies, and for unifying metaphysical questions. (shrink)

Ontološki pluralizam je gledište prema kojemu postoje različiti načini postojanja. Povijesno gledano, načini postojanja su usklađeni s ontološkim kategorijama. Ovaj rad istražuje zašto postoji takva veza i kako je treba shvatiti. Ontološki pluralizam pati od prigovora prema kojem se ontološki pluralizam urušava u ontološki monizam, tj. u gledište da postoji samo jedan način postojanja. Priznavanje ontoloških kategorija može spasiti ontološki pluralizam od ovog prigovora ako načini postojanja utemeljuju ontološke kategorije.

The metaphysical doctrine of emergence continues to exert a powerful pull on philosophers and metaphysically inclined scientists. This paper focuses on a recent account of emergence advanced by Jessica Wilson in Metaphysical Emergence, but the discussion has the broader aim of making explicit some of the underlying themes that inspire thoughts of emergence generally. These prove to be, not merely optional, but largely lacking in merit.

In this paper, I argue that all expressions for abstract objects are meaningless. My argument closely follows David Lewis’ argument against the intelligibility of certain theories of possible worlds, but modifies it in order to yield a general conclusion about language pertaining to abstract objects. If my Lewisian argument is sound, not only can we not know that abstract objects exist, we cannot even refer to or think about them. However, while the Lewisian argument strongly motivates nominalism, it also undermines (...) certain nominalist theories. (shrink)

Célebre por um tipo de filosofia que se caracteriza pelas linhas de fuga e pela desterritorialização de um pensamento nômade, Deleuze se reconhece como um filósofo sistemático. Como todo sistema, uma filosofia sistemática se define por um conjunto de elementos que se compõem e se alinham de modo a conferir a ele uma coerência. O presente artigo pretende demonstrar como o conjunto da filosofia de Deleuze confere uma organicidade e verosimilhança a seu sistema de pensamento a partir da articulação entre (...) a imanência, o acontecimento e o conceito. Esta tríade atravessa todo o seu trabalho e irá caracterizar aquilo que Deleuze chama de heterogênese; uma tentativa de fazer com que a filosofia se desprenda dos estados de coisas e vá na direção das intensidades, levando o pensamento ao limite e à máxima potência. Queremos demonstrar o modo como Deleuze opera em seu sistema de forma a associar e criar aproximações entre elementos mais ou menos heterogêneos, ora criando zonas de aproximação, ora provocando afastamentos. (shrink)

A review of E.J. Lowe and Ontology, Edited By Mirosław Szatkowski. (New York, Oxford: Routledge, 2022. Pp. 326. Price £130.00.).

In this paper, I distinguish between two possible versions of Amie Thomasson’s easy ontology project that differ in virtue of positing atomic or holistic application conditions, and evaluate the strengths of a holistic version over a non-holistic version. In particular, I argue that neither of the recently identified regress or circularity problems are troublesome for the supporter of easy ontology if they adopt a holistic account of application conditions. This is not intended to be a defence of easy ontology from (...) all possible objections, but rather to compare holistic and non-holistic versions of the view. This discussion is also significant in that it serves to highlight two distinct forms of easy ontology, which, I argue, need to be distinguished when assessing the merits of the easy approach in future work. (shrink)