METAPHYSICS / ONTOLOGY 

(NOTE: posting another part of my ongoing dissertation. This is a part of an unedited and working chapter, there are gaps and this text at the moment, which I am editing as I am posting this.)

Since this study raises the question of the ontological models behind the architectural theories of style, it is important that I explicate what is ontology, and also what is object-oriented ontology or OOO, pronounces tripple-O.  In this section I will try to clarify some of the following things about ontology or metaphysics: (1) What is ontology or metaphysics? A theory of everything; (2) What are the two broad starting points of any ontology? Absolute Being or Absolute Being of Objects. OOO is an ontology of Absolute Being of Objects; (3) What are the broad schools of ontology? Materialsm, Realism, Naturalism, Idealism and/or Rationalism; (4) What are the three broad models of ontology? Immanent, Transcendent, and Trascendental. In order to develop these answers I will present a brief survey of the central thesis of some of the most important philosophers in the Continental tradition. With this study I should be able to identify and engage with the ontological models beneath the theories of style developed by architects, which are discussed in the subsequent chapters. I will begin this discussion on metaphysics with what I am familiar with, i.e. the idea of ontology in object-oriented ontology, and try to understand the term from both a historical perspective and from the perspective of some of the contemporary philosophers. Among other things, one of the first things that one associates with Object-Oriented Ontology is that it is a realist philosophy. That means that there are ontologies that are not realist, anti-realist, and so on. One of the objectives of this section is to get to that list of kinds or schools of metaphysics. Manuel DeLanda has claimed that, at the end of the day, every kind of metaphysics is a commitment and every philosopher worth her salt worksout the consequences of their commitments, with ever so slight operations on the initial terms of commitment. In what follows, my interest and intention is in understanding the basics or fundamentals of metaphysics (which historically, especially since Kant, has proved almost impossible for various reasons, some of which I will try to collate below). Let me sharpen this intention or objective even further: I want to understand the various schools of metaphysics or ontology that have emerged since Parmenides -which I have a hunch are not many in number, and which surprisingly shows the narrowness or the object of focus of metaphysics (contrary to its many criticism of vagueness). Each of these schools have a different conception of being or in a more general terms of existence itself -and that by any measure is as singular a focus as one can demand and one that is not even a necessary condition for a speculative discipline as ontology. For what is the singular object of arts or poetry or fictious stories? Yes, it may sound contradictory that a metaphysics such as OOO which seems to be concerned with the existence of objects deals with existence in general. Yet, it is absolutely consistent in its objectives and methods as any metaphysics worth its name. This might be a good time to introduce some of the various ways in which metaphysics is understood. 

1. THE DEBATE BETWEEN ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS AND WHAT HAVE PHILOSOPHERS WRITTEN ON THIS ISSUE

Let me then begin with what I understand about metaphysics from OOO, before turning to other philosophers and their idea of metaphysics or ontology. First thing to note is that Harman uses the term metaphysics and ontology and even philosophy as synonymous terms. ““In philosophy the terms ‘ontology’ and ‘metaphysics’ are so similar that some (including the author of this book) prefer to use them as synonyms. Both refer to the part of philosophy concerned with the structure of reality as such, rather than with the more specific areas covered by ethics, political philosophy or the philosophy of art.” (Harman, 2018, p.12-13) Secondly, metaphysics or ontology is seen not in the classical sense of the study of Being (in the sense of Parmenides, Hegel, Heidegger), but rather as the study of the general “structure of reality” or existence of objects or things (Plato, Aristotle, Whitehead, etc.). Reality is certainly a broad term and often tends to encompass everything and it is the objective of OOO to get at the general structure of reality of everything. Thirdly, and this is something well known to even any early student of metaphysics, that the term metaphysics itself was the title given, by Aristotle’s student “Andronicus of Rhodes in the first century BC.” (Aristotle, 2016, p. xxvi) to a certain set of texts that were chronologically written after his book on nature or physics (most early Greek thinkers had a book on nature). The term ontology was coined in the 17th century. Fourthly, philosophy (or metaphysics, or ontology) is a thinking about things or objects or entities. As I will discuss towards the end of the chapter Harman’s claim is that western philosophy so far has been a “festival of anti-objects”. And yet, all of its insight begins with the profound wonder of things or “what is this?” Here I agree with Reeve “The science of being qua being is accordingly a science of form.” (Reeves, Aristotle, 2016, p. xxxii)

Let me start with a contemporary thinker close to Harman, Bruno Latour. Latour is sometimes clubbed under what is referred to as the ‘ontological turn’ in anthropology. The claim here is that anthropology has finally come to terms with the numerous cosmologies and epistemologies of various communities and that the generally globalized world wishes to flatten out any difference and by extension any other cosmology or epistemology under the guise of universalism. Latour goes one step further to claim that each person has their own metaphysics. Which broadly means their worldview or even cosmology.  In that sense for Latour at the end of the day metaphysics, cosmology, ontology, and even epistemology are nothing more than ways of structuring and framing reality. But if one follows Latour too far there would be no specifics of any discipline. What one can extrapolate from Latour is that various disciplines are able to navigate and even map the various networks a particular object is entangled in -and one can stretch the analogy to map the limits and disconnections in the network. This is not the time to get into that debate, let me turn back to philosophers on metaphysics. 

Let me turn to contemporary Italy where another close ally of Harman and fellow realist Maurizio Ferraris is located. Ferraris differentiates between ontology and epistemology. Ontology according to Ferraris deals with what there is and ‘what there is’ are individuals. Epistemology on the other hand deals with what we know of what there is and is concerned with what he calls objects “something placed in front”. (Ferraris, 2018) While Ferraris maintains a distinction between individuals and objects, what should be remembered is that he acknowledges that existence precedes knowing. 

Let me turn to another thinker who Harman has been closely associated with, Heidegger. Heidegger’s critique of the western metaphysics is rather diametrically opposite to that of Harman. Unlike Harman, Heidegger thinks that the entire corpus of western philosophy was concerned too much with the ontic (that is existents, things, objects) and the question of Beingbeing was absolutely forgotten (initiated by Parmenides). To be concerned with the ontic and not the ontological was the great failure according to Heidegger. In that sense, metaphysics is not the favored term for Heidegger and he wishes to distinguish it from ontology. I will soon get to the discussion on Being in one of the following sections, particularly with help of Julian Marias who proposes that throughout the history of the discourse on being philosophers have tried to change the idea of meaning –and which has its own consequences. 

Let me turn to another philosopher whose ideas Harman has been developing for quite some time: Immanuel Kant. Kant’s issue with metaphysics was even more fundamental (having a fundamental problem with the presumed fundamental science or philosophy). Kant’s basic problem with Metaphysics, or what he referred to as pure reason, is that no metaphysician, until Hume, asked the question of the possibility of such an a priori cognition, or form of knowledge, as metaphysics. Yet, despite the confrontational tone towards metaphysicians, Kant’s objective was not to shoot down metaphysics but to give it a reasonable and perhaps even a defensible footing (sort of a table for the table kind of gesture). “But as soon as I had succeeded in solving Hume’s problem not merely in a particular case, but with respect to the whole faculty of pure reason, I could proceed safely, though slowly, to determine the whole sphere of pure reason completely and from general principles, in its circumference as well as in its contents. This was required for metaphysics in order to construct its system according to a reliable method.” (Kant, 2004, p. 8)

Let me turn now to Aristotle, whose philosophy has acquired the status of infinite source, and who’s works is a direct inspiration, even fundamental to Harman’s realist metaphysics. For Aristotle, the bigger question was to locate the highest form of knowledge which had itself as the ultimate end and not any specific use. Aristotle was fully aware that such a knowledge was perhaps the least useful of all other specific knowledge: “All the sciences are more necessary than this one, then, but none is better.” (Aristotle, 2016, p. 6) Aristotle is helpful in thinking about the terminological difference between metaphysics and ontology –afterall it is the compilation of his works that lead to the title of an entire discipline, even if it existed prior to him. Aristotle thought of such a knowledge  as first philosophy. If we hold that to be true, then the object of both metaphysics and ontology is the same: existence in general. Julian Marias definitely understood this very clearly, and hence in his ‘History of Philosophy’ he uses the terms interchangeably and yet precisely. As Aristotle mentions at the beginning of Book  Little Alpha “Theoretical knowledge concerning the truth is in one way difficult to get and in another way easy.” (Aristotle, 2016, p. 27)

This way it is possible to see that the terms metaphysics and ontology can be used interchangeably as long as their objective or subject matter is the general existence and structure of reality. Now, it may perhaps be objected that how is something like an Object-oriented Ontology which is focused on individuals and the “reality” in general be considered as an ontology or metaphysics? History of philosophy is rich with this debate and we can take help of Julian Marias’ to understand the ways in which this debate between particular individuals or entities and general reality / being has been at the heart of any model of metaphysics. This difference between what I am refering to as absolute being and absolute being of individuals as two braod objects of ontology and also its two broad schools of metaphysics or ontology is discussed in the following section, while fully acknowledging that OOO belongs to the later school. 

2. The Object of Ontology and its two broad models: Absolute Being and Absolute Being of Things

What is the core object of metaphysics? In other words, what is one studying when one is studying metaphysics? As seen above, Harman would say we are concerned about the general structure of reality. The hypothesis that I am working with here is that there have been two broad ways in which metaphysics or ontology formulate the general structure or model of reality –and all other models are a way of either refining, combining or refuting these two broad models. Either reality is defined as the absolute being or reality is defined as absolute being of individuals.  Any and all other ways of engaging with metaphysics fall in this spectrum. In the following section I will try to show how choosing one or either ways of defining the absolute has given rise to several schools of metaphysics. In Harmanian terms, it is useful to keep an eye on whether a metaphysics is undermining, overmining, or duomining things. But that is still the next step, I have to first get at the core subject matter of metaphysics before I make a case for what kind of metaphysics is OOO –obviously falls in the large bracket of absolute being of individuals. In many ways, the core subject matter of metaphysics and its broadest models are exhausted between Parmenides (Absolute Being) and Aristotle (Absolute Being of Individuals or what Aristotle called as the study of beings qua beings). Everything or Every-Thing. The history of western philosophy, at least, since then has either been a series of refutations or modifications or combinations of these very profound and foundational models of reality. This is of course in no way to suggest that subsequent or even contemporary philosophers have not produced groundbreaking works, that would be utterly foolish to assume. The point here is that as far as it is possible to distill or deduce some foundational models of metaphysics, they are possible to be found between Parmenides and Aristotle. One more thing to add here is that, there have been wonderful speculations on the structure of reality prior to and along side Parmenides, but I am inclined to agree with Julian Marias, that there is a methodological shift and precision that philosophy acquires after Parmenides, which gives metaphysics or philosophy its scope as a discipline.