Ontology

Understanding Being

Fundamental Concepts of Ontology in Their Historical Roots

The ontological position closely aligned with common sense is that of Aristotle, whose conceptual framework has dominated philosophical tradition. He was the thinker who systematically developed this "first philosophy," later dubbed "metaphysics" by Andronicus of Rhodes, the compiler of Aristotle's manuscripts; he named the section following the works on physics as "that which comes after physics"—in Greek, a shortened form: metaphysics. Although the terms "metaphysics" and "ontology" are often used synonymously, the former carries different connotations and has become rather ambiguous; hence, we shall refrain from using it further in this context.

Aristotle posited that any statement (thought) must pertain to something; it is always an assertion about something, an object. For instance, "It rained in Kyiv" is a statement about an event (the rain) relating to Kyiv. Alternatively, it can be expressed as, "In Kyiv, it rained today." Or, yet again, "Kyiv is the place where it rained today." Thus, statements about anything can be distilled into a relationship expressed by the verb "to be" between the subject (what is being spoken about) and the predicate (what is being asserted).

What cannot be a predicate but must always serve as the subject in a sentence, Aristotle termed substance (more precisely, this concept entered Latin later). The existent (being) as substance, a real entity, is the bearer of properties in which they converge. Height is always the height of something, green is always something, and good is always someone. This something or someone constitutes the existent, and it is only about this entity that one can assert its existence. The verb "to be" indicates this existent on one hand and its properties (what it is) on the other.

Some of these properties are necessary (they cannot not exist) and defining for this type of entity; these are referred to as attributes. Others are contingent; they may or may not exist and depend on the totality of possible interactions of a particular entity with others. These properties are known as accidents. Accidents reveal the history of the entity, detailing what has transpired with it.

It is nonsensical to assert something about the existent while simultaneously denying it in the same respect. Such a statement, which envisions a contradictory combination of incompatible characteristics, is logically impossible and thus cannot be actualized. There cannot be a married bachelor, a son of a childless woman, a square triangle, or wooden iron.

The attributes of substance form the essence of the thing (the existent), defining it as a specific example of an entity (form), though every form is instantiated in some material bearer (matter). Consequently, the existent (the entity) represents a unity of form (the structure) and matter. Moreover, one entity, a particular something, can serve as material for another, more complex construction. This organization is now commonly referred to as a system. A system is an integrated whole composed of constituent elements that interact in a specific manner, resulting in new qualities (properties) that pertain to the system as a whole but not to its individual elements. For instance, a tree comprises cells, yet an individual cell does not possess the properties of a tree. The system as a whole establishes connections with other systems, responds to external influences, and exerts such influence itself, including as an element of a higher-order system.