Ontology- the basic terms

Ontology seeks ultimate reality.- ontology is one of the most ancient fields of philosophic
investigation. The dawn of western thought in ancient Greece saw ontological speculation already
well under way. The oldest of all Western philosophhers known to us was that wise and learned
greek thales, who reflected upon the ubiquity of water and concluded that the ultimate substance
out of which all things come is water. What makes thales important is not so much his guess as the
fact that he conceived od the possibility that all things were ultimately one substance.

Thales was the first to make a very important distinction. To the average person who looks
about him all things are taken to be what they are. Things appear to be wood, iron, water, flesh, and
so on and are taken to be precisely those substances. In other words, the average person makes no
distinction between appearance and reality. It is only occasionally that Mr. Mits (man in the street) is
brought up sharply as, for example, when he sees what looks like a fresh piece of food and discovers,
upon biting into it, that it is wax and not food at all. If we want a term to apply to the attitude of the
average person, we could call him a “naïve ontological prularist.” He is naïve because he takes things
as they are; he is pluralist because he thinks there are many ultimate substances.

Naïve ontology.- the average person would at least differentiate between the visible,
tangible. Material things, around him and the invisible, intangible nonmaterial thing he calls his
“soul.” Sometimes the man in the street meets people whi insist that the soul does not exist, that
only matter is real. This troubls him vaguely, because of the implications he thinks it has for his
salvation. Ocassionaly he becomes terror-stricken at such doctrines, and he may engage in
vituperative exclamations against these materialists. Or, he may pause briefly in the rush of daily
affairs and wonder Who is right? And What is the nature of reality? These are ontological questions
and lead to other questions such as, what is the relation between the various parts of reality? And
How does reality come to be and how does it change? These questions are ofthen called
“cosmological” since they are concerned with the order and arrangement of reality and not with its
ultimate nature.

Quantitative and qualitative ontologies.- it should bbe clear that ontology can approach the
nature of reality from two major pointsof view. One might ask, “is reality one or many?” this is
aquantitative approach. Or one may ask, “what kind of thing is reality ultimately?” this is qualitative
approach. In a define sense all ontological problems can be reduced to the general questions “how
are we to speak of reality?” or, “what predicates are to be attached to reality?” it becomes clear that
if the same predicates can be applied to all aspects of reality, then reality is one. This would follow
because if there were two different parts of reality, then, since they were different, there would be
at least one predicate not applicable to both.

Monistic ontologies.- long ago in ancient Greece, Parmenides said that reality was one and
that all plurality, difference, and change were illusions. Sucha monistic system is not very common
today, because difference seems to be an ultimate category of reality which cannot be argued away.
There are those, however, who insist that at bottom all things are the same. These are the monist of
todsay, the idealists and materialists. What is involvd is the problem of whether or not there are
different types of reality.; of course, if all things are real, they are the same to that degree. The basic
distinction between monists and non-monists lies in their acdeptance or rejection of the statwmwnt
“only X is real.”

To say that something is real implies that is also meaningful to say there is something unreal.
This distinction between the real and the unreal or between reality and appearance is basic to all
ontology. How we come to realize that not all is what it appears to be is not difficult to see. Consider
the table onn which your book rests. It appears to be of a given color. But what color does it have? A
hasty uncritical look may make you think it is all brown perhaps. But if you are an artist or look more
carefully you will see that there are various shades of brown and some parts have a distinct whitish
look, or perhaps that there is a bit of red here and there. The top of the table may seem to be
somewhat rectangular in shape; but you say it really rectangular. The table appears differently from
different anglesof vision; yet you would insist that behind or presupposed by all these appearances
there is the real table which is exactly what it is independent of the point of view which you take.
“things,” we are told, “are never what they seem. Ksim milk masquarades as cream.” The questions
arise, what then is its real shape? What is its real color?

In the same way, science tells us the table is made of atoms and these are made of lesser
particles. But our senses tell us that the table is solid and continuous. What is the real nature of this
table? Clearly, the table we expereience is quite different from the real table. But what if there is no
real table? Is it not possible that we have only appearances and no reality at all?

Basic terms in ontology.- I have said that philosophy may be viewed as a kind of language for
talking about things. Accordingly, the first task in understanding ontology is to list and explain some
of the basic terms that are used in it. Already in the discussion of the preceeding pages a few have
been indicated. Among the most important terms are; bing. Reality, existence, appearance,
substance, change, one, and many. I shall discuss first the nature and meaning od these terms and
some od the propotions that arise using them. The various ontological schools are organized around
the assertion or denial of definite propositions involving these terms.

1. being and non-being

The most general property.- the terms “being” and “non-being” were introduced in chapter
3, and I suggest that what I said there be read again. The term “being” may be viewed as referring to
a property which can be predicated of anything and everything. It is, therefore, the most general and
most simple of all predicates. It does not differentiate one thing from another as do other
ppredicates, but it unifies al things indicating what is identical in them. Without the attribute of
being, nothing could exist or be thought of. Since being is the ultimate and most simple of all
attributes, it can not be defined in the sense of reduction or reference to supposedly more basic
attributes. One way, therefore, to become acquaintined with its meaning is to relate it to other
characteristics or to give criteria for its application. Another way is to describe and classify the
various types of things to which the predicate is applicable. But this is the entire realm of the actual
and possible, and for this reason Aristotle defines metaphysics as “the science of being qua being.”

The actual and the possible.- my last sentences indicates a basic distinction in “the realm of
being.” Being, i.e., these things of which being can be predicted, can be divided into (I) the actual
and (2) the possible. In addition to this classification, the realm of being may also be subdivided
either into (Ia) the real (2a) the apparent, or (Ib) the real (2b) the conceptual. This brings out a basic
ambiguity. In the one case being is viewed as the summum genus- the class of all classes, in which all
other things are species. In the other, being is considered to bbe a predicate applicable to all things.
It is clear, I hope, that in neither case can being be identified with existence, since even nonexistent
things can be said “to be” or “to have being.”

Being as a class.- let us consider some expressions. “To be a being” is an expression like “to
be a horse.” It would appear to imply that the X to which we refer is something which is included in
the class of beings. Thus to say of X that it is a being is to say it is included in the class of beings. The
expression “to have being” is more like the expression “to gave the quality of horseness.” This sems
to mean that if X is said “to have being” then X has the quality of being.

Being and existence.- what then do we mean when we say that “X has being” or, more
briefly, that “X is”? one thing is clear at once, which is that “to be” is not equivalent of “to exist.” If
anything exists, it certainly has being, but the converse is not true. Consider, for example, this table.
It is possible to say “this table has being.” Existence presupposes being. But suppose we now
consider the memory you had yesterday of last summer’s romance. Surely neither yesterday’s
memory nor last summer’s romance now exists, nevertheless the very fact that you can think of or
recall them indicates that they continue to have being in some fashion or another. Being, then,
neither, presupposes nor necessarily implies existence. This, of course, assumes a certain meaning of
term “existence,” which I shall discuss later in this chapter. These remarks may also be taken as an
example of the difference between real and conceptual being.

Real and apparent being.- to take another illustration, conside the traditional example of the
stick which upon immersion in water looks bent. I have already discussed the epistemological
problems involved, and it is obvios that a distinction is to be made between the real stick as it
appears to us. That the real stick has being is evident; but the appearance also is in some sense of
the verb. Hence we need to attribute being both to the real stick and to the appearance, which
illustrates the distinction between real and apparent being.
 Terjemahan dr gugel translate(thanks)

Ontologi merupakan salah satu kajian filsafat yang paling kuno yang membahas keberadaan
sesuatu yang bersifat konkret. Ontologi mencari realitas tertinggi. - ontologi adalah salah satu bidang
penyelidikan filosofis yang paling kuno. Fajar pemikiran Barat di Yunani kuno melihat spekulasi
ontologis sudah berjalan dengan baik. Yang tertua dari semua filsuf Barat yang kita kenal adalah
thales yunani yang bijaksana dan terpelajar, yang merefleksikan keberadaan air dan menyimpulkan
bahwa zat utama dari mana segala sesuatu datang adalah air. Apa yang membuat thales penting
bukan hanya dugaannya sebagai fakta bahwa ia memahami kemungkinan bahwa semua hal pada
akhirnya adalah satu substansi.

Thales adalah yang pertama untuk membuat perbedaan yang sangat penting. Bagi kebanyakan
orang yang memandangnya, segala sesuatu dianggap seperti apa adanya. Benda-benda tampak
seperti kayu, besi, air, daging, dan seterusnya dan dianggap tepat sebagai zat-zat itu. Dengan kata
lain, rata-rata orang tidak membedakan antara penampilan dan kenyataan. Hanya kadang-kadang
Tuan Mits (lelaki di jalan) dibesarkan dengan tajam seperti, misalnya, ketika dia melihat apa yang
tampak seperti sepotong makanan segar dan menemukan, setelah menggigitnya, bahwa itu adalah
lilin dan bukan makanan sama sekali. Jika kita ingin sebuah istilah diterapkan pada sikap orang
kebanyakan, kita bisa memanggilnya "seorang prungalis ontologis yang naif." Dia naif karena dia
menganggap segala sesuatu sebagaimana adanya; dia pluralis karena dia pikir ada banyak substansi
utama.

Ontology naïve—orang biasa pada umumnya akan membedakan antara yang terlihat dan
yang nyata. Benda-benda material, di sekitarnya dan benda non-materi yang tak kasat mata dan tak
berwujud yang ia sebut “jiwanya”. Terkadang pria yang ada di jalan betemu orang-orang yang
bersikeras bahwa jiwa itu tidak ada, bahwa hanya materi yang nyata. Ini menyulitkannya secara
samar-samar, karena implikasi yang dia pikir miliki untuk keselamatannya. Kadang-kadang dia
menjadi dilanda teror pada doktrin-doktrin semacam itu, dan dia mungkin terlibat dalam seruan
yang sangat mujarab terhadap para materialis ini. Atau, ia mungkin berhenti sebentar dalam
kesibukan sehari-hari dan bertanya-tanya Siapa yang benar? Dan apa sifat realitas? Ini adalah
pertanyaan ontologis dan mengarah ke pertanyaan lain seperti, apa hubungan antara berbagai
bagian realitas? Dan bagaimana realitas itu terjadi dan bagaimana ia berubah? Pertanyaan-
pertanyaan ini sering disebut "kosmologis" karena mereka berkaitan dengan keteraturan dan
pengaturan realitas dan bukan dengan sifat utamanya.

Ontologi kuantitatif dan kualitatif. – harus jelas bahwa ontologi dapat mendekati sifat
realitas dari dua sudut pandang utama. Orang mungkin bertanya, "Apakah realitas itu satu atau
banyak?" ini adalah pendekatan aquantitatif. Atau orang mungkin bertanya, "Apa jenis realitas pada
akhirnya?" ini adalah pendekatan kualitatif. Dalam arti tertentu, semua masalah ontologis dapat
direduksi menjadi pertanyaan umum “bagaimana kita berbicara tentang kenyataan?” atau, "predikat
apa yang melekat pada realitas?" menjadi jelas bahwa jika predikat yang sama dapat diterapkan
pada semua aspek realitas, maka realitas adalah satu. Ini akan mengikuti karena jika ada dua bagian
realitas yang berbeda, maka, karena mereka berbeda, akan ada setidaknya satu predikat yang tidak
berlaku untuk keduanya.

Ontologi monistik. — dahulu kala di Yunani kuno, Parmenides mengatakan bahwa realitas
adalah satu dan bahwa semua pluralitas, perbedaan, dan perubahan adalah ilusi. Sistem monistik
seperti itu tidak lazim dewasa ini, karena perbedaan tampaknya merupakan kategori realitas
tertinggi yang tidak dapat diperdebatkan. Namun ada beberapa yang bersikeras bahwa pada
dasarnya semua hal adalah sama. Ini adalah monis masa kini, kaum idealis dan materialis. Yang
terlibat adalah masalah ada atau tidaknya berbagai jenis realitas; tentu saja, jika semua hal itu nyata,
mereka sama dengan tingkat itu. Perbedaan mendasar antara monis dan non-monis terletak pada
penerimaan atau penolakan mereka terhadap pernyataan "hanya X yang nyata."

Mengatakan bahwa sesuatu itu nyata berarti juga bermakna untuk mengatakan bahwa ada sesuatu
yang tidak nyata. Perbedaan antara yang nyata dan yang tidak nyata atau antara kenyataan dan
penampilan adalah dasar bagi semua ontologi. Bagaimana kita menyadari bahwa tidak semua yang
tampaknya tidak sulit untuk dilihat. Pertimbangkan meja tempat buku Anda berada. Tampaknya dari
warna yang diberikan. Tapi apa warna yang dimilikinya? Penampilan tidak tergesa-gesa yang
terburu-buru mungkin membuat Anda berpikir itu semua mungkin cokelat. Tetapi jika Anda seorang
seniman atau melihat lebih hati-hati Anda akan melihat bahwa ada berbagai nuansa coklat dan
beberapa bagian memiliki tampilan keputihan yang berbeda, atau mungkin ada sedikit merah di
sana-sini. Bagian atas meja terlihat agak persegi panjang; tetapi Anda mengatakannya benar-benar
persegi panjang. Meja itu muncul berbeda dari sudut pandang yang berbeda; namun Anda akan
bersikeras bahwa di balik atau diandaikan oleh semua penampilan ini ada meja nyata yang persis
independen dari sudut pandang yang Anda ambil. "Hal-hal," kita diberitahu, "tidak pernah seperti
apa yang tampak seperti susu skim sebagai krim." Timbul pertanyaan, bagaimana bentuk
sebenarnya? Apa warna aslinya?

Dengan cara yang sama, ilmu pengetahuan memberi tahu kita bahwa meja itu terbuat dari
atom dan ini terbuat dari partikel yang lebih rendah. Tetapi indera kita memberi tahu kita bahwa
meja itu solid dan kontinyu. Apa sifat sebenarnya dari tabel ini? Jelas, meja yang kami alami sangat
berbeda dari meja sebenarnya. Tetapi bagaimana jika tidak ada meja nyata? Apakah tidak mungkin
bahwa kita hanya memiliki penampilan dan tidak ada kenyataan sama sekali?

Istilah dasar dalam ontology. – Saya telah mengatakan bahwa filsafat dapat dipandang sebagai
semacam bahasa untuk membicarakan berbagai hal. Oleh karena itu, tugas pertama dalam
memahami ontologi adalah membuat daftar dan menjelaskan beberapa istilah dasar yang digunakan
di dalamnya. Sudah dalam pembahasan halaman sebelumnya beberapa telah ditunjukkan. Di antara
istilah yang paling penting adalah; menjadi, Realitas, keberadaan, penampilan, substansi, perubahan,
satu, dan banyak lagi. Saya akan membahas terlebih dahulu sifat dan makna dari istilah-istilah ini dan
beberapa proposisi yang muncul menggunakannya. Berbagai sekolah ontologis diselenggarakan di
sekitar pernyataan atau penolakan proposisi yang pasti yang melibatkan istilah-istilah ini.