Why critical ontology?

"The 'being' of things is indifferent to whatever things might be 'for someone'."

Nicolai Hartmann asked "How is a critical ontology at all possible?" [1].  He was writing at a time when metaphysics was under attack or being dismissed as irrelevant. Part of his answer was that ontology, properly structured, is more like a a science of what exists than speculative metaphysics. But what purpose does it serve? The short answer is that critical ontology is a way of investigating what exists and how it exists and that this must be considered before investigating how things behave. Hartmann's writings on ontology [2], [3], [4], [5], developed the answer further. In addition to taking seriously the phenomena of normal life and natural science, he examines in detail the history of ontology. Hartmann's critical historical examination, ranging from the pre-socratics to his contemporaries such as Heidegger, leads him to classify many approaches as mistaken in not addressing existence as such but merely the appearance or knowledge of things or packing everything in the realm of ideas or physical substance.

Critical ontology is a phrase used elsewhere. For example as the branch of philosophy that studies what it means to be in the world, to be human.   Our use of "critical" has nothing to do with critical studies or critical theory or any of its derivatives. Critical in this blog means a stance or approach that examines theories, claims and proposals for consistency and correspondence with the facts together with a recognition that there is always the possibility of error - comprehensive fallibilism.

In addition to critical historical investigation ontology needs some terminology and structure. Hartmann's concepts of heterogeneous ontic spheres and strata provide a starting point for the investigations but they will not escape critique either.

Entities, Spheres and strata

The phrase What is as such will be taken as the point of departure. The term "entity" will be used for what is. An entity - purely as such, whatever it may be in its particulars - exists indifferently to whether it is known or not known, whether it is knowable or unknowable. Without entities there would be nothing to have properties, to make appearances nor to induce perceptions. The object is related to the entity and is used when the entity stands in relation to another entity. That is, it becomes an object through the relationship.

The philosophical task of organising what exists into categories can be traced back to Aristotle, at least, and `object' is a candidate for the category under which everything falls but so, perhaps, is `thing' or `entity'. Nominal definitions can only provide an arbitrary distinction between the terms to does not provide progress.  So, intuition from normal usage will provide guidance on the distinctions to be adopted:

• "Entity" will be used to designate that which exists as such. 
• "Thing" can designate a physical entity.
•  An "object" is an entity that has properties, and these properties appear in relation to other entities.

In physical theories the entities of interest will be objects. What is achieved by insisting on the "entity" is to stress that existence is not merely a matter of appearance. Appearance provides access to the object. This notion of appearance is interactional and reflexive. In particular quantum particles such as electrons, protons and positrons are objects. However, it is through their properties that they interact with other objects, and it is their properties that are observables in the sense of standard quantum mechanics.

The ontological structures introduced by Hartmann include: 

• The ideal and real spheres of being
• The layered structure of real being. 
• The Dasein and Sosein relationship.

A major purpose of Hartmann's ontology is to clarify the mistakes and pitfalls in idealism and realism. The "isms" will make the dogmatic claim that fundamentally everything is immaterial (Ideal) or everything physical (Real) or everything mind (Panpsychism). Critical ontology makes clear that there is no need follow either dogmatic path but claims it is wrong to identify the real with the material. The real sphere is much larger. 

The ideal sphere includes entities such a logic, mathematics, scientific theories. It is also the sphere where ethical and aesthetic values reside. The ideal and real spheres are not separate but different ways of being. It is a position going back to Plato than ideal being is superior to material being and more real because eternal. In contrast here the real (as set out below) is the ontological stronger sphere. They are distinguished in that everything real is individual, unique, destructible; whereas everything ideal is universal, returnable, always existing.

The real sphere consists of the natural world of common experience and its elaboration through scientific investigation. This sphere has four layers or strata (Schichten): inorganic, organic, psychic, and spiritual.  

• Inorganic stratum, with categories such as space, time, process, substance, is organised through causality.
• Organic stratum, with categories such as metabolism, assimilation, self-regulation, self-reproduction and adaptation, is organically organised - the peculiarity of the organic network is unrecognizable for the time being.
• Psychic stratum, with categories such as consciousness, pleasure, act and content. Equally unknown is the form of determination of mental acts. That is, we do not understand how mind works
• Spirit includes categories of fear, hope, will, freedom, thought, personality, but also society, historicity, or intersubjectivity. Its organisation principle is Finality ([6] page 58).

The term Geist originates from the German idealist tradition influenced by Hegel among others - as it is used, for example, in Geisteswissenschaft (Humanities)—and its meaning covers both individual mind as well as superindividual culture, which is why it lacks an adequate English translation. It should not be interpreted as in any religious sense here. In addition, "psychic" relates to mind and mental - no interpretation in terms of superstitious "psychic phenomena" is intended.

In the layered structure the organic builds on the inorganic and the psychic builds on the organic. It is only the system of categories that apply to them that distinguish the levels. The relationship between the strata and their categories requires systemic treatment and will be covered in a separate post. 

"Dasein" and "Sosein" 

"Dasein" and "Sosein" ("being there" and "being so" although the original German will be used in the following translation) are interacting ways of being in both spheres. This is illustrated by a quotation from Hartmann, [2] page 123:

Das Dasein des Baumes an seiner Stelle "ist" selbst ein Sosein des Waldes, der Wald wäre anders ohne ihn; das Dasein des Astes am Baum "ist" ein Sosein des Baumes; das Dasein des Blattes am Aste "ist" ein Sosein des Astes; das Dasein der Rippe im Blatt "ist" ein Sosein des Blattes. Diese Reihe läßt sich nach beiden Seiten verlängern; immer ist das Dasein des einen zugleich Sosein des anderen. Aber sie läßt sich auch umkehren: das Sosein des Blattes "ist" das Dasein der Rippe, das Sosein des Astes ist das Dasein des Blattes usf. Daß es immer nur ein Bruchstück des Soseins ist, das im Dasein von etwas anderem besteht, daran wird man hierbei keinen Anstoß nehmen dürfen. Denn es handelt sich gar nicht um die Vollständigkeit des Soseins. Wohl aber läßt sich sagen, daß auch die übrigen Bruchstücke des Soseins auf dieselbe Weise im Dasein von immer wieder anderem und anderem bestehen.

Translation

The Dasein of the tree in its place "is" itself a Sosein of the forest, the forest would be different without it; the Dasein of the branch on the tree "is" a Sosein of the tree; the Dasein of the leaf on the branch "is" a Sosein of the branch; the Dasein of the rib in the leaf "is" a Sosein of the leaf. This series can be extended to both sides; always the Dasein of one is at the same time Sosein of the other. But it can also be reversed: the Sosein of the leaf "is" the Dasein of the rib, the Sosein of the branch is the Dasein of the leaf, etc. That it is always only a fragment of the Soseins, which consists in the Dasein of something else, must not be taken negatively. Because it is not at all about the completeness of being. But it can be said that the other fragments of Sosein also exist in the repeating existence of always different and different things.

Conclusion

What Hartmann provides is not a philosophical system but a way of investigating being systematically.  It is critically constructive. Step by step, we can gain greater insight into the constituents of the world. In this blog topics will be tackled in physical and social science as well as philosophy where ambiguity over what exists or dogmatic positions risk hiding the nature of what there is and how it acts. For example, in physics, the status of space and time has been debated for millennia. Some claim that one or the other or both are illusory.  In economics homo economicus is often declared not to exist but can be found in many text books.  

It is the current debate on the foundations of quantum mechanics on the status of the wavefunction and the particle that rekindled my interest in ontological questions. So that will be the subject of the next and probably many other posts.

Hartmann's philosophy will provide the initial structure for the ontological investigations in this blog. A very useful and concise introduction to Hartmann's philosophy as whole is provided by Predrag Cicovacki in The Analysis of Wonder [7]. 

References

[1] Nicolai Hartmann. "Wie ist kritische Ontologie überhaupt möglich? Ein Kapitel zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre". In: Festschrift für Paul Natorp. Zum siebzigsten Geburtstage von Schülern und Freunden gewidmet (1924), pp. 124-177.

[2] Nicolai Hartmann. Zur Grundlegung der Ontologie. 4th ed. De Gruyter, 1948.

[3] Nicolai Hartmann. Möglichkeit und Wirklichkeit. 3rd ed. De Gruyter, 1937.

[4] Nicolai Hartmann. Der Aufbau der realen Welt. 3rd. De Gruyter, 1939. 

[5] Nicolai Hartmann. Philosophie der Natur. 2nd ed. De Gruyter, 1949.

[6] Nicolai Hartmann. Neue Wege der Ontologie. 3rd ed. W Kohlhammer, 1949.

[7] Predrag Cicovacki. The analysis of wonder: an introduction to the philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann. Bloomsbury, 2014