Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Ontological pluralism is warranted: all entities, whateve... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Ontological pluralism is warranted: all entities, whatever their type, demand the same careful ontological scrutiny.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    Overall Strength:39%
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.All ontological differences are categorial articulations of being, not differences between being and non-being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Existentially dependent entities are as ontologically genuine as existentially independent ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Some entities (numbers, fictional objects, shadows) have derivative or diminished being that disqualifies them from full ontological parity with concrete particulars.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Meinong's distinction between Sein and Sosein, and Quine's criterion of ontological commitment, both show that 'demanding scrutiny' is not equivalent to having equivalent ontological status.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating all posited entities as equally genuine collapses the distinction between what exists and what merely subsists, undermining the explanatory work ontology is supposed to do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's doctrine of the pros hen equivocity of being holds that substance is the primary sense of being, and other categories are beings only by reference to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If being is said in many ways with a focal meaning, then existentially dependent entities like qualities or relations do not warrant the same ontological scrutiny as substances—they warrant derivative scrutiny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim that all entities demand the *same* careful scrutiny conflates methodological thoroughness with ontological egalitarianism, an error that obscures real asymmetries in the structure of being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    All ontological differences are categorial articulations of being rather than di...Aristotle's doctrine of the pros hen equivocity of being holds that substance is...Existentially dependent entities are as ontologically genuine as existentially i...If being is said in many ways with a focal meaning, then existentially dependent...
    +4 moreShow less
    Meinong's distinction between Sein and Sosein, and Quine's criterion of ontologi...Some entities (numbers, fictional objects, shadows) have derivative or diminishe...The claim that all entities demand the *same* careful scrutiny conflates methodo...Treating all posited entities as equally genuine collapses the distinction betwe...

    Similar

    Atheoretical pluralism better reflects actual scientific practice than...81%If a domain as well-established as mathematics can span multiple ontol...80%Species pluralists can provide criteria for judging the legitimacy of ...78%The ontologist's task is to determine which entities and kinds of enti...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: nicolai-hartmann
    View source passageHide passage
    Hartmann claims in Ontology: Laying the Foundations (1935) that the book “form[s] the prelude to an ontology that I have been working on for two decades,” and that “[a] new critical ontology has become possible. The task is to make it a reality” (v). The book paved the way for a systematic treatment of ontology by introducing (1) the difference between modes of being (the modalities of possibility, necessity and actuality), spheres of being (real and ideal), and ways of being (Dasein and Sosein)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit