Talk:Meta-ontology

message: The cover description for the anthology Metametaphysics goes like this: 
:Metaphysics asks questions about existence: for example, do numbers really exist? Metametaphysics asks questions about metaphysics: for example, do its questions have determinate answers? If so, are these answers deep and important, or are they merely a matter of how we use words? What is the proper methodology for their resolution? 
It should be immediately clear to anyone editing Metaphysics, Ontology, Meta-metaphysics, or Meta-ontology that not only did the publisher not understand the distinction between metaphysics and ontology, but neither do the majority of professional philosophers. Partially, the reason is just language, different words used for the same ideas, but mainly this is due to the philosophy of the times which imagines itself to be the only metaphysics of all possible metaphysics. The consequence is that terms like metaphysics-ontology lose distinction and collapse into the same meaning, the search for existence.
This thinking is parochial. There are differences between possible and developed metaphysical systems based on the fundamental logic employed, and on the target application of the systems. Parmenides, Plato's Ideas, some Pythagoreanisms, Plato's Realism, Aristotle's Realism all use binary logic with non-contradiction, yet are quite distinct. Modern philosophy ignores these fundamental metaphysical differences, and seeks ontological solutions, which will tend not to fit within the logical constraints.
Wikipedians have a problem. We are bound by what is commonly accepted in peer-reviewed literature. When a crucial issue is rarely raised, then references, which do exist, are difficult to unearth. That difficulty should not mean that we must bury the crucial issue as well. BlueMist (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As one with a sincere interest in relational ontology, process ontology, and process-relational ontology, I was bothered by the fact that these were not mentioned in this article, which describes ontology as mainly a matter of which kinds of entities "exist" and do not "exist". That's a pretty narrow, and very incomplete, understanding of ontology.  Jrivermartin (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Meta-ontology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx to http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx to http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220135908/http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx to http://www.amiethomasson.org/papers%20to%20link/Carnap%20and%20prospects%20for%20easy%20ontology%20revised.docx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028135407/http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Ontology.pdf to http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0257/papers/Ontology.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: My last edit was rather big so, I'll go over some of the things I added/changed and why I added/changed them. The previous lead-section lacked a proper definition which I added. I split the "Overview"-section into 3 sections: "Relation to ontology", "Realism" and "Anti-realism". Most of the added material concerns the "Realism"-section, which previously only mentioned the difference between the neo-Aristotelian approach and the Quinean approach in passing. The comment on the Carnap-Quine debate seemed to be out of context since the debate wasn't mentioned anywhere before. I moved it to the "Anti-realism"-section and provide some context to it concerning Carnap's anti-realism.Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructured and added content