notebook/notes/ontology/philosophy/index.md

211 lines
7.6 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters!

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters that may be confused with others in your current locale. If your use case is intentional and legitimate, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to highlight these characters.

---
title: Ontology
TARGET DECK: Obsidian::H&SS
FILE TAGS: ontology::philosophy
tags:
- ontology
---
## Overview
Ontology is the philosophical study of being. Generally *things* are split into two broad categories: **abstract** and **concrete** things. These words are "terms of art" and their definition is not standardized in any way.
%%ANKI
Basic
What did Quine declare as *the* ontological question?
Back: "What is there?"
Reference: Simon Hewitt, “A Cardinal Worry for Permissive Metaontology,” _Metaphysica_ 16, no. 2 (September 18, 2015): 15965, [https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2015-0009](https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2015-0009).
<!--ID: 1720912238054-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Who is attributed *the* ontological question?
Back: Willard Van Orman Quine.
Reference: Simon Hewitt, “A Cardinal Worry for Permissive Metaontology,” _Metaphysica_ 16, no. 2 (September 18, 2015): 15965, [https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2015-0009](https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2015-0009).
<!--ID: 1720912259767-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Cloze
{Ontology} is the {philosophical study of being}.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912238058-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Cloze
{Epistemology} is the {philosophical study of knowledge}.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912238062-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Cloze
{Taxonomy} is the {branch of science concerned with categorization}.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912238066-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Cloze
{Mereology} is the {philosophical study of part-whole relationships}.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720998380912-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
What does Effingham mean when saying "concreta" and "abstracta" are terms of art?
Back: They are terms defined freely by a person to mean whatever one wants.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782942-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Cloze
In general, ontologists often categorize things as either {concreta} or {abstracta}.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782951-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Generally speaking, what does someone *probably* mean by "concrete" things?
Back: Things that exists in space and/or time.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782957-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Generally speaking, what does someone *probably* mean by "abstract" things?
Back: Things that exist in neither space nor time.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782965-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Is a material object considered concreta?
Back: Usually.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782971-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Is an immaterial object considered concreta?
Back: Possibly.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782978-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Is a material object considered abstracta?
Back: Not usually.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782984-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Is an immaterial object considered abstracta?
Back: Possibly.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720894782989-->
END%%
## Properties
A **property** is an entity that can be predicated of things or, in other words, attributed to them.
%%ANKI
Basic
What is a property?
Back: An entity that can be predicated or attributed to things.
Reference: Francesco Orilia and Michele Paolini Paoletti, “Properties,” in _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2022 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022), [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/).
<!--ID: 1720912237900-->
END%%
### Instantiation
An entity is said to **instantiate** a property if said entity bears a connection to the property. For example, a human instantiates the property of *being human* and a man instantiates the properties of *being human* and *being a man*.
%%ANKI
Basic
What is instantiation?
Back: A relation held between an entity and the properties that describe the entity.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912237951-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Cloze
A man is said to {instantiate} the property of *being a man*.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912237960-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
What is self-instantiation?
Back: The instantiation of a property by itself.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912237967-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
What is non-self-instantiation?
Back: The non-instantiation of a property by itself.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912237974-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Suppose all properties are self-instantiating. What must be said about *being honest*?
Back: The property *being honest* is honest.
Reference: Francesco Orilia and Michele Paolini Paoletti, “Properties,” in _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2022 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022), [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/).
<!--ID: 1720912237980-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Suppose properties are abstracta. What self-instantiation is thus formed?
Back: The property of abstractness is abstract.
Reference: Francesco Orilia and Michele Paolini Paoletti, “Properties,” in _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2022 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022), [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/).
<!--ID: 1720912237986-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
What is the paradox of non-self-instantiation?
Back: The property *non-self-instantiation* is non-self-instantiating iff it is self-instantiating.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912237992-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Let $P$ be the property *is non-self-instantiating*. What happens if $P$ is non-self-instantiating?
Back: Then $P$ must be self-instantiating.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912237998-->
END%%
%%ANKI
Basic
Let $P$ be the property *is non-self-instantiating*. What happens if $P$ is self-instantiating?
Back: Then $P$ must be non-self-instantiating.
Reference: Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
<!--ID: 1720912238004-->
END%%
## Bibliography
* Francesco Orilia and Michele Paolini Paoletti, “Properties,” in _The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2022 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022), [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/](https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/properties/).
* Nikk Effingham, _An Introduction to Ontology_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013).
* Simon Hewitt, “A Cardinal Worry for Permissive Metaontology,” _Metaphysica_ 16, no. 2 (September 18, 2015): 15965, [https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2015-0009](https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2015-0009).