The traditional ontological question has been "what is there?", A question that we must undoubtedly ask ourselves at some point in our lives, as well as those that usually accompany it, such as "why is there something instead of nothing?" or "what is Reality?", which are variations on the same theme. Each generation asks the question again, and each time it must be answered anew. If this does not happen, philosophy gives way to the empty case of rational theology, no matter how much it masquerades as science.
Of course, one could give the same answer today as the one given two thousand years ago, even using new intellectual tools. The previous ontologies are not necessarily surpassed, as shown by the survival of religious ontologies, or Platonism, or atomist and Spinozist materialism, since there is no evidence capable of settling the disputes about what there is, however surprising this is to modern mind. Our ontologies have too often tended to go beyond the framework of life experience. The path initiated by the pre-Socratic philosophers in which theological myths were replaced by the new naturalistic myths did not produce worldviews closer to ordinary experience: the Heracleitean logos, the atoms of Democritus were no closer to the experience of the individual than the gods of the Olympian pantheon. Comparatively, the physical pre-Socratic method was clearer than its psychological mystery precedent, as that of contemporary physics is with respect to that of those first attempts at natural philosophy, but the ontological frameworks proposed in all cases present similar uncertainties and difficulties, and they bring up the importance of epistemology when it comes to unraveling what there is.
Clarity demands simplicity, few principles from which to build the edifice of Reality, foundations from which to derive our knowledge in a demonstrative way. If there were no such derivation, the number of principles would multiply and we would find ourselves unable to effectively integrate information making it useful for vital action. We might think that geometry or logic offer the best paradigm for the purpose, but by thinking like this we would be making an ontological assumption derived from the apodictic method. Assuming the beautiful axiomatic method as an ontological principle implies believing in the inferential structure of the universe, and that a persevering human intellect can understand it, that is, it implies a belief in logic as a tool for unveiling the Universe, which in its turn implies that the Universe is a dual Essence which grounds logic. The optimism of the assumption is as naive as it is enviable, but by fails to differentiate between the usefulness of the regulative principle of clarity and simplicity and the ontological belief of that intellective principle.
Ontology became hopelessly entangled in the theological fabric from which it started. However, as an alternative, we could assume the need for clarity and simplicity in neurophysiological terms: the universe does not have an inferential structure based on eternal dual truths, but instead, simplicity is necessary for successful survival experiences.
Ontology, like any other human activity is not understandable outside the anthropological field in which it arises, its fundamental dimension is vital, it is an activity of the human Soul that tries to establish a center of the universe, a referential framework for meaning, and is embedded in experience, both ordinary and liminal.
Comments