Quine’s Ontology Essay

Willard Van Orman Quine’s doctrine chiefly tackles ontology. reasoning that ontology is comparative to one’s conceptual or lingual model. Furthermore.

Quine’s ontological averments basically revolve around the inquiry of “what is at that place? ” inasmuch as ontology efforts to cast more philosophical apprehension on the types of entities that exist. His averments fundamentally seek to place the bing entities such as whether there are Numberss. universals like inflammation. and head to call a few.One manner to understand Quine’s theory is by mentioning the Pegasus illustration. That is. individual X may situate the logical thinking that Pegasus must be bing in one manner or another because to state that Pegasus doesn’t exist requires that there should be that ‘Pegasus’ which is being talked about.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Therefore. this logical thinking is basically indicating out the thought that for one to be able to speak about something or asseverate that such object does non be requires that such object should at the same clip exist.To widen this claim. one may province that a individual can non fundamentally make certain averments of being or inexistence towards certain objects if that individual has no cognition of that object in the first topographic point. and that this anterior cognition should presuppose that the object so exists.

Quine. on the other manus. will non accept such an statement for one important ground: individual X in the given illustration dainties or understands the statement that “Pegasus doesn’t exist” as a statement wherein the belongings of nonentity is being ascribed to the bing object Pegasus.Quine tells us that it is so incorrect to handle the statement that manner. and that the logical manner of understanding the statement is that “it is false that there is something that is Pegasus” which basically does non give the given that the object Pegasus should be in one manner or another.

Therefore. as a thesis. it can be argued that Quine’s method of geting at the ontology of objects focal points on the mode in which we understand and make usage of linguistic communication in a logical mode. which is in much the same manner in which we commit ourselves to the ontology of objects.By widening the statement. it can be said that. since our intervention of linguistic communication is the foundation of our ontological averments. a displacement in linguistic communication besides corresponds to a displacement in ontology as Quine himself will besides indicate out.

Indeed. there is strong ground to believe that our intervention and apprehension of the linguistic communication that we use greatly affects the manner in which our heads operate and make ontological claims. With this in head. it is safe to presume that certain persons holding a alone apprehension and intervention of their ain linguistic communication will most probably have a different apprehension and intervention of the linguistic communication of others.

Language itself is complex and that there are broad fluctuations in the lingual devices for each society or state. Therefore. it is inevitable to hold a different apprehension in footings of ontological claims from among different people. Nevertheless.

Quine makes it a point that the usage of a certain linguistic communication per Se is non needfully superior or the right 1 over another. What Quine is asseverating. though. is that even though we have different linguistic communications and that at that place. excessively. are shifts in linguistic communications. it can non be an alibi to do averments which are linguistically flawed.One interesting point that Quine raises is that the mere usage or vocalization of certain words such as ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and ‘Pegasus’ or the inclusion of these footings in any given statement necessitates the corresponding being of these words.

Indeed. it is obviously easy to do statements or averments. particularly about claims of whether or non certain objects genuinely exist by the mere vocalization of the labels or names for such objects. On closer scrutiny. nevertheless. Quine’s statement will cast visible radiation on the confusion that arises from such an case.Indeed. it is different to do a statement of being or inexistence affecting certain footings and to really turn out the being or inexistence of objects through linguistic communication.

One manner to demo this differentiation is to carefully do a bit-by-bit analysis of the old illustration of Pegasus. It has been argued that to do the statement “Pegasus doesn’t exist” requires that the object “Pegasus” should really be in order to do certain averments about it. Following the claims of Quine. such a statement does non needfully presuppose the anterior being of Pegasus.The portion where the statement errs is the portion where the object Pegasus is assumed to be and that what is being done is to give the belongings of nonentity to Pegasus. That is.

the object Pegasus is believed to be foremost and so the belongings of nonentity is accordingly given to the object. The key to understanding the defect in such a statement is logic. Quine gives us the feeling that we can utilize certain names such as “Sherlock Holmes” or “Pegasus” without really presupposing that the name “Sherlock Holmes” or the object “Pegasus” corresponds or denotes an existent entity.The mere use of certain names or footings may non needfully connote that there are factual objects or entities which correspond to these names or footings. In kernel.

it is unlogical or it does non needfully follow that the usage of a term ten necessitates that there is an existent ten. Another interesting point being put frontward by Quine is his celebrated motto that “to be is to be the value of a variable. ” That is. one merely commits to an ontological claim when what is being stated is in the signifier of “there is ten that is so on and so forth.” The illustration “Pegasus doesn’t exist” does non follow the signifier of “there is ten that is so on and so forth. ” Rather. the Pegasus illustration is a mere statement which does non needfully denominate any corresponding entity or object for the name ‘Pegasus’ .

The Pegasus statement may function a literary map yet it does non chiefly function an ontological map. If it should hold served an ontological map. the more proper preparation of the statement should be that “there is a Pegasus that is so on and so forth.

” In footings of formal logic. for the Pegasus illustration to go an ontological averment. it should specifically be framed in footings of “there is an ten such that so on and so forth refers or corresponds to x. ” Quine’s claim that ontology is comparative to one’s conceptual or lingual model emphasizes the thought that a failure to hold on certain lingual models corresponds to a failure to hold on the ontology of objects.

These lingual models may be seen as alone to certain groups of persons and. hence. it would be futile to put a certain statement unique to that of a certain group to the lingual model of another group.The key. nevertheless. to making off with such a blemished attack is to do usage of logic which. after all.

prevarications at the bosom of Quine’s ontological averments. such as puting statements that purport to perpetrate to ontology in the signifier “there is an ten such that so on and so forth. or the properties. refer to x. ” Carnap asserts that ‘external questions’ such as ‘what are things’ and ‘are Numberss existent? ’ are basically flawed and. hence.

unanswerable because such inquiries are beyond the lingual model and it is merely through and within the lingual model that cognitive content or an apprehension of the inquiry can be given.However. Quine tells us that this may non needfully be the instance because such a differentiation. or the differentiation between the internal and the external. equaled the differentiation between analytic and man-made which tells us that a truth is analytic if it is true through the virtuousness of that truth’s lingual composing and man-made if the truth depends on a certain mention to the existent external universe. Quine tells us that such a differentiation should be abandoned exactly because ontology is comparative to one’s conceptual or lingual model.Quine’s averment that a displacement in linguistic communication goes manus in manus with a displacement in ontology besides emphasizes the thought that ontology is comparative to one’s conceptual or lingual model.

That is. when we change our linguistic communication or when a certain linguistic communication is used in topographic point of another linguistic communication in doing ontological averments. there is the hazard that a displacement in ontology may besides take topographic point because there may be a limited handiness to the variables in certain linguistic communications.Or.

within a specific lingual model. certain words may hold matching equivalent word yet when taken in the chase of ontology the equality of footings or words may altogether alteration or switch the ontology being sought after. For case. the term ‘Pegasus’ may intend something as ‘the winged Equus caballus captured by Bellerophon. ’ In the illustration ‘Pegasus doesn’t exist’ . replacing ‘Pegasus’ with ‘the winged Equus caballus captured by Bellerophon’ alterations the statement to ‘the winged Equus caballus captured by Bellerophon doesn’t exist. ’ This method of replacing the ten term or ‘Pegasus’ with another accordingly shifts the ontology.

Therefore. the statement of Quine—that a displacement in linguistic communication at least in the illustration given—ordinarily involves the corresponding displacement in ontology. The apprehension of linguistic communication and its proper and logical usage are important to the survey of the ontology of objects. Without such an apprehension and proper intervention.

the troubles in the philosophical pursuit for the ontology of things will be harder than they appear to be. In general. Quine gives us a unsmooth glance into the chases of ontology.

Reference Quine. W. V. “Ontology and Ideology Revisited. ” The Journal of Philosophy 80.

no. 9 ( 1983 ) : 499-502.