I am not a philosopher, but I recently encountered an argument in which a participant repeatedly asserted that “ontology is existence” and treated the two terms as synonymous.
My understanding is that ontology is generally the branch of philosophy concerned with being, existence, and the categories of what exists, rather than a synonym for existence itself.
Is there any recognized philosophical tradition, school, or contemporary usage in which ontology and existence are treated as synonymous terms? Or would most philosophers regard this as an imprecise use of the word “ontology”?
If the latter, what distinction would professional philosophers normally draw between ontology and existence?
I am interested in both historical and contemporary usage. If there are philosophers who have used “ontology” as shorthand for “existence” or “being,” I would appreciate examples.
they were probably exasperated with someone who insisted that said branch branched further because (it might have been alleged) being is somehow not a synonym for existence.
Ontology is the study of existence not existence itself.
Someone keen to make a pedantic point - might claim that if we are studying something it has some form of existence even if it’s just a fiction in someone’s mind.
Not sure if they’re inexcusably wrong without seeing the whole quote? Maybe (hyper-trendy) usage allows discussion about the “ontology of unicorns”? (Referring to the existence of unicorns. Conventional usage already allows discussion about the “ontology of unicorns” if that phrase refers to the study of or discussion about existence of unicorns.)
If someone is talking about existence this would be ontology, a term coined in 1606 by combining the Greek words onto
(being or existence) + logos (speech, word, logic, etc.)
Heidegger understands existence as self-transcendence. ‘Ex’-istence is an exiting from self. The ontology or nature of the being of my being is ecstatic, a going beyond.
For example, a headache is “ontologically subjective”, which means that the headache exists (it’s real), but only for the one who feels it.
This use of the word clarifies that the headache is not subjective in some arbitrary or “epistemically subjective” way (e.g. like an opinion or expression of taste). A pain is real, even if it has a subjective mode of existing.
For Heidegger ontology is not a theoretical enterprise that subjects decide to engage in. Existence is ontological more fundamentally because Dasein is already an ecstatic openness in which Being is disclosed before any explicit reflection or theorizing begins. To say that ontology is a study of or a way to make sense of existence implies that human beings first exist , and then they engage in an activity called “study” or “sense-making “.
But for Heidegger ontology is not primarily the result of a conscious attempt to make sense of ourselves. Dasein doesn’t first exist and then interpret. Its existence is itself interpretive. Before philosophy, before reflection, before ontology as a discipline, we use tools, inhabit a world, encounter others, pursue projects and care about things. The carpenter using a hammer isnt first theorizing about the hammer’s being. Yet the hammer already shows up as usable, meaningful, and relevant. This meaningful relevance and understanding is already ontological. And in his later work he makes clear that human beings are not the source of disclosure.
By exist people often mean physical presence in space and time, or extension. Etymologically existence is to “stand out”, which I would suggest alludes to distinction, or individuation. To be a separate and distinct thing. The disputes over existence, then, come back to disputes between true distinctions, or ultimate lack thereof. Like Clark Kent and Superman. There is no true distinction, people can just be confused about that. Similarly people argue this sort of thing with mind and matter. Or really, all forms of reductionism are disputes about whether a true distinction exists, or if they are ultimately the same thing, and there are not two things, but one thing.
Ontology is more about the ways in which things exist. The ways in which your neighbor exists differs from the way in which Superman does. One referring to a literal person, the other to a fictional character in a comic book franchise. Or the nature of the ways in which a real gold coin and an imaginary one exists.
The speaker, who had earlier posed as a philosopher, said:
“For those of you guys that don’t know what the word ontology means, it just pretty much denotes that something has a state of being. The word ontology refers to being or existence.”
And a fan of his declared in support
“You are confused by the word ontology. Ontology is existence, my guy.”
No doubt the first statement is a definition that is off target. The second, if meant to buttress the first should be ontology refers to “beingness” or existence.
Hence my inquiry to know if the philosophers had been using ontology as synonym of existence.
Philosophers often enact the presupposition that their own inquiry “floats above” the object being studied.
They may assume that their “concepts” are “not mixed in” with the object they study.
They may have a theory of existence that completely fails to account for theories of existence as important parts of existence.
The atomism of Democritus is a class example. Viewed as physics, this atomism is profound and prescient. Viewed as fundamental ontology or as a theory of existence, it is naive and incomplete.
The theory of atoms doesn’t address how it’s possible that there can be a rational theory of atoms in the first place. Democritus forgets to account for himself as a thing in the world. There is philosophy in the world, and philosophy needs to address the existence of philosophy.
This means getting some sense of what meaning is, and what is rationality is. To me it means foregrounding the “forum” or “space of reasons” that all conversation takes for granted.
To say that being is ontology — or that being is a question — is to try to point at the total situation. I say that “existence is ontology” to emphasize that I am no longer forgetting that my own inquiry is not only here but also even central. My inquiry is even the structure of what is.
The “lived world” is always coming into focus. Existence is ongoing visceral sense-making, philosophy in the flesh. Existence is the ongoing sense-making or perishing flesh or self-consciously mortal ontology.
Contrast this with “all is mind” or “all is matter.” This is just Democritus or Thales all over again. Inquiry is narrowed to a boring game of naming this or that fundamental stuff. It’s like chefs tasting a dish and guessing the primary ingredient. A more self-conscious chef would notice instead the total situation. Existence is pasta but chefs trying to guess ingredients in a kitchen.
Or — better — chefs becoming aware of the current structure of the situation and thereby transforming it. Philosophers can become aware that they have taken the shape of the game for granted.