I’ve been critical of metaphysics in the past. When I suggest that there is a problem with metaphysics, philosophers seem to come out of the woodwork to tell me how wrong I am.
Well, never mind that. I’ll continue to call them as I see them.
I’m told that ontology is the main part of metaphysics. I’ve recently come across some examples of ontology that illustrate my viewpoint.
This post will comment on the first of those examples. It is a blog post
As an example of “fundamental ontology” it mentions:
First, what is the nature of being – is it all one substance diversified into different entities, or do the entities themselves have qualitatively, perhaps even quantitatively, separate substances?
I presume some people see that as an important question. To me, it looks as if some words have been strung together so as to match the syntactic form of a question. But it still reads as word salad.
Now maybe I have just picked one sentence out of that blog post. So go read the whole thing. To me, it all seems silly.
So I see ontology as nonsense. Epistemology should be done without ontology. If you don’t think that epistemology can be done without ontology, then you are doing it wrong. Lots of people are doing epistemology wrongly. (And that’s why I am a heretic).