This blog post attempts to give an accessible introduction to ‘ontology’. This is my second such attempt – see this earlier post. I was inspired to write this by Tom Fryer’s excellent introduction to ontology and epistemology. I should also acknowledge (and highly recommend) Peter Adamson’s philosophy podcast for the ancient examples.
Fundamentally, ontology is the philosophy of existence; it is the branch of philosophy primarily concerned with what does and doesn’t exist, and secondarily concerned with the basic nature of the stuff that does exist. This definition, even when it is written clearly and precisely, is usually of more help to those who already know what ontology is, rather than those looking for an initial understanding. It is perhaps more illuminating to think of ontology as a series of unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable) controversies and debates.
These debates take place in many parts of academia, most prominently in philosophy departments, but also among natural scientists, especially theoretical physicists who discuss the basic structure of the universe, and among social scientists, especially social theorists who discuss the basic nature of society. Ontological controversies also crop up in public debates and public policymaking, though they are usually implicit undercurrents and are rarely addressed directly. We can begin by thinking of these debates as concerned first and foremost with distinctions.
In order to comprehend reality, we must make distinctions. We must say “this is one thing and that is another”, in exactly the way we might hold a piece of fruit in each hand and say “this is an apple and… this is an orange”. Some people are inclined to make more distinctions than others; “this is a red apple and… this is a green apple”. Others are inclined to make as few as possible: “these are two pieces of fruit”. Some make distinctions sharply and cleanly; “there are two sorts of apples in this world, red ones and green ones”. Others make distinctions loosely and tentatively; “apples come in a wide range of colours but this particular apple is redish and… this particular apple is greenish”. Perhaps you were thinking ontology to be more profound. All this talk of apples trivialises matters, but one should not think ontology to be more complex than it actually is. At a basic level, it is a series of debates about (a) when it is appropriate to make distinctions and (b) to what extent these distinctions should be thought of as clear and sharp.
So as to dispel any myths that ontology might be primarily about fruit, it will be worth emphasising the importance of ‘distinctions’ in a few different contexts. First, it is necessary to offer a bit of clarity on the word ‘ontology’. I have introduced ‘ontology’ generally as a branch of philosophy that covers a series of debates and controversies. But, you will also often hear the word used to refer to a particular approach, so that a particular philosophical theory might be ‘an ontology’. In this sense, ontological debates are debates between rival ontologies. Therefore, we have ‘ontology’ as an abstract noun that refers to the branch of philosophy that deals with existence, but we also have ‘ontologies’ as a count noun that refers to the various different theories of existence. Ok, so let us see how different ontologies apply different distinctions.
In many ancient societies, it was common for existence to be reduced to four elements, earth, water, air, and fire. This ‘ontology’ explains existence as being fundamentally made up of four basic entities. In the view of many ancient philosophers, all the distinctions we might make between red apples and green apples, or between apples and oranges, are ultimately based upon the foundational distinctions between earth, water, air, and fire. Some went further, arguing that one of the elements was more basic than the others. Of the earliest Greek philosophers, Thales argued that everything was ultimately made of water, while Anaximenes argued that everything was ultimately made of air. So, one way to think about ontology is to ask what are the most fundamental distinctions we need to make between different parts of existence. Or, to put it another way, ontology is concerned with the basic distinctions we need to make before we can make any others.
To jump fairly randomly from ancient societies to the 21st century, we could look at the ontology of philosopher E. J. Lowe. He starts with just two distinctions, one between the universal and the particular, and another between the substantial and the non-substantial. He overlaps these two distinctions to produce four fundamental categories: ‘kinds’ (substances and objects such as apples and oranges), ‘objects’ (particular objects such as ‘this apple’), ‘attributes’ (properties and relations such as ‘redness’ or ‘separateness’), and ‘modes’ (particular instances of properties and relations such ‘the redness of this apple’). Because an ontology is an attempt to develop a theory that can underpin all other theories, Lowe would challenge you to identify a part of existence that doesn’t fit into his categories, just as the Ancient Greeks would challenge you to identify something that isn’t made out of earth, water, air, and fire. If you can think of some problem with these categories, well done, you are already engaging in an ontological debate!
In summary, ontology is the branch of philosophy concerned with existence, but it is not just a matter for philosophers, because ontological debates and ontological controversies crop up all over the place, and are becoming increasingly important in the social sciences. These debates are ultimately about where we should draw the most basic distinctions between categories or parts of existence.
Have a think about this. If you were to outline your own ontology, what would be the first distinction(s) you would make? I’m guessing it won’t be between earth, water, air and fire, but what distinction(s) would you start with? Are you religious? Perhaps it might be between God and God’s creation. Are you atheist? perhaps it might be between energy and matter or between past and present. How about you yourself? Ontology can hardly happen without you, so how about distinguishing between reality and your experience of reality?
Dr Jack Newman - Research Blog 