|
In metaphysics (in particular, ontology), the different kinds or ways of being are called categories of being or simply categories. This term came into use with Aristotle; one of his treatises is called the Categories (which can be found online, for example, [here]). Since a being is anything that can be said to be in the various senses of this word (see being), to investigate the categories of being is to determine what the most fundamental senses are in which things can be said to be. |
|
In metaphysics (in particular, ontology), the different kinds or ways of being are called categories of being or simply categories. According to the Aristotelian tradition, a being is anything that can be said to be in the various senses of this word (see being). Hence, to investigate the categories of being is to determine what the most fundamental senses are in which things can be said to be. A category, more precisely, is any of the broadest classes of things--'thing' here being used to mean anything whatever that can be discussed--that cannot be reduced to any other class. |
|
Philosophers have many differing views on what the fundamental categories of being are. Indeed, one of the basic questions of ontology is: "Just what are the fundamental categories of being?" In no particular order, here are at least some items that have been regarded as categories of being by someone or other: |
|
It is hoped, moreover, that a full account of the categories would be exhaustive in the sense that everything can be placed into at least one of the categories. Sometimes ontological category schemes have included nonexistent or even impossible objects; Meinong?, who thought we can talk unobjectionably about nonexistent objects such as the golden mountain, was an ontologist. For example, what it means to take the category [physical object]? seriously as a category of being is to assert that the concept of physical objecthood cannot be reduced to or explicated in any other terms--not, for example, in terms of bundles of properties. In this way, as it turns out, very many controversies of ontology can be understood as controversies about exactly which categories should be regarded as the (fundamental, irreducible, primitive) categories. Category came into use with Aristotle; one of his treatises is called the Categories (which can be found online, for example, [here]). [Somebody should list Aristotle's categories here.] Aristotle's particular list of categories is widely rejected nowadays, however, in part because the Aristotelian notion of substance has been widely rejected. Philosophers have many differing views on what the fundamental categories of being are. In no particular order, here are at least some items that have been regarded as categories of being by someone or other: |
|
Classes. We can talk about human beings, and planets, and engines as classes of things. Within the class of human beings is all of the human beings, or (in other words) the extension of the term 'human being'. In the class of planets would be Mercury, Venus, the Earth, etc.--and all the other planets that there might be in the universe. Classes, in addition to each of their members, are often taken to be beings. Surely we can say that in some sense, the class of planets is, or has being. Classes are usually taken to be abstract objects, equivalent in meaning to 'set'. |
|
Classes. We can talk about all human beings, and the planets, and all engines as belonging to classes. Within the class of human beings is all of the human beings, or (in other words) the extension of the term 'human being'. In the class of planets would be Mercury, Venus, the Earth, etc.--and all the other planets that there might be in the universe. Classes, in addition to each of their members, are often taken to be beings. Surely we can say that in some sense, the class of planets is, or has being. Classes are usually taken to be abstract objects, like sets; 'class' is often regarded as equivalent in meaning to 'set'. |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)