Ontology is defined as being the study of "being". It is the study of existence and reality. But what is existence? What is reality? At one extreme it may be proposed that we have a material existence that takes a physical form while at the other extreme it may also be proposed that we have an existence that does not have any form of physical component and there would seem to be a great potential for a positions that take something from both extremes. Yes, it is perfectly possible to interpret that we have an existence that has no physical components and yet 'a common sense' view of existence can be considered to indicate that our we have an existence has at least some level of physical content.
Ontology is generally regarded to be a part of the perceived branch of philosophy called Metaphysics and it seems to me that, at some stage along the line, mistakes have been made.
Descriptions that I have read on the subject of metaphysics have regularly defined the term to mean "after the physical". After the physical? How can this be? If we have a branch of philosopy that is presented to tackle issues that relate to situations after the physical and if we have the school of philosophical study that relates to the study of being and if it is decided that the school of thought that related to the study of being should be placed within the branch of philosophical study that relates to after the physical type situations and if we were to come to a not so extreme conclussion that indicated that we had at least some form of a physical existence then we may seem to be at serious risk of disappearing in a puff of logic.
I would argue that ontology should be given the credit it deserves. It has been said that the principal questions of ontology are "What can be said to exist?" and "Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?" but a broad view of ontology may expand its list of principal questions. I don't know whether they know it or not but the world's leading physicists may be classified as being ontologists. I don't know how happy they might be if someone were to describe them as being metaphysicians and yet the conjecture seems quite possible that many of them would agree that their fields of study related to the study of existence.
The ancient philosophers loved the skillful application of wisdom and were right to give attention to the issue of the physical. They wrote whole books on the subject. The Greek word φυσικός means natural; 'physical'; instinctive and it can be interpreted that many of the great philosophers made great efforts to gain natural, physical and 'common sense' understandings of the world. Philosophers such as Aristotle were on the cutting edge of intellectual thought regarding the nature of existence. He wrote about physics – and he also wrote an apparent collection of writings that came to be known as 'the metaphysics'.
In Book 1, Part 8 of the apparently compiled collection Aristotle wrote:
Those, then, who say the universe is one and posit one kind of thing as matter, and as corporeal matter which has spatial magnitude, evidently go astray in many ways. For they posit the elements of bodies only, not of incorporeal things, though there are also incorporeal things. And in trying to state the causes of generation and destruction, and in giving a physical account of all things, they do away with the cause of movement. Further, they err in not positing the substance, i.e. the essence, as the cause of anything, and besides this in lightly calling any of the simple bodies except earth the first principle, without inquiring how they are produced out of one anothers—I mean fire, water, earth, and air.
Aristotle, however, was not the last person to contribute to the subject. For instance, it is now widely considered that Fire, Earth and Air are formed through the interaction of a potentially wide variety of elements while water is brought into its astoundingly remarkable and capable form by the delicately balanced and yet fully commited interaction of just two of them. All in all it can be considered that physics would has developed and expanded its conceptions in a wide variety of ways.
But where might all this leave ontology? If we are to merely follow the commonly expressed "after physics" definition of metaphysics then it might easily be interpreted that ontological study is being progressively pushed into the perifery. It is out on a limb.
I am curious to know more about the origins and early use of the term metaphysics. This is what I've learned so far. Aristotle lived 384 BC – 322 BC and yet it was apparently only in the first century AD that a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά - "the after the Physics". This could be either interpreted to mean that the writings dealt with topics on subjects that were, in some way, after the physics or, for instance, to mean that the book was written after [the writing of] the physics.
As far as I know, Aristotle did not in any way push the use of the phrase 'the metaphysics'. For all I know, may not even have used the word at all. The word metaphysics did not appear in any of my searches through a translation of 'the metaphysics'. (I was researching references to physics in an online copy of 'the metaphysics' at the time). This being the case it seems slightly strange to me that the synopsis of the the Dover edition of 'the metaphysics' should state:
A central part of academic inquiry and scholarly education, metaphysics was regarded as "the Queen of Sciences" even before the age of Aristotle. This multipart essay by the prominent philosopher examines the nature of existence, along with issues related to causation, form and matter, mathematics, and God.
Was "metaphysics" really regarded to be a central part of academic inquiry before the age of Aristotle and, if so, was this a grand mistake? Its not as if people don't make mistakes. That has to be admitted. The biggest mistake, however, is when we don't recognise them.
I am left to wonder whether the current interpretation of the Queen of Sciences is a mere pretender to the throne – a throne that should rightly be credited to the sphere of ontological study to which philosophers such as Aristotle were so devoted.
I appreciate that much of this posting relates to a squabling over words and their use. However it may be considered that the clear and appropriate use of terminologies is an issue worthy of attention.
Ontology is the study of being. Perhaps this already broad can also contain disiplines that relate to mystical issues of non-being as well. On this basis I am personally drawn to consider that perhaps ontology may not merely be regarded to be a major branch of philosophy. Perhaps it is the trunk.
