Against Fantology

Against Fantology

The discussion in this section is based on the article [Smit2005a] of Barry Smith.

Page 1: "Because predicate logic has exactly two syntactically different kinds of referring expressions - ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘R’, etc., and ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, etc. - so reality must consist of exactly two correspondingly different kinds of entity: the general (properties, concepts) and the particular (things, objects)". That is exactly the view we share. We also take this as a further argument for the fact that there are also exactly two levels of entities in ontologies, the Schema Layer and the Particulars Layer.

Page 2: "The dark force of fantology has spread its tentacles also beyond the realm of philosophy to embrace much of what goes on in computer science under headings such as ‘knowledge representation’ and ‘conceptual modeling’". Wittgenstein very precisely took up the discussion in his Tractus, see e.g. LW 3.1432 and LW 4.012. A more detailed elaboration can be found on pages 102 to 106 [LuWi1921]. With a short proof he settles also Russel's paradox LW 3.333.

Particulars are Unknowable

Page 10: "Names are mere ciphers – a matter of pure denotation ... And, if (as on some standard fantological views) universals are identified as mere sets of particulars – or with functions between such sets of particulars and what some fantologists are pleased to call ‘worlds’ – then this implies a nomenal view of universals, too". This is described more comprehensively by Wittgenstein in LW 3.22, LW 3.26, LW 3.261 and LW 3.263, where he speaks, among other things, of the meaning and inseparability of primary signs.

Poor Treatment of Relations

Page 14: "The tradition found it necessary to distinguish between several radically different types of relations."

• "First there are real material relational endurants, like love or hate, and other relational qualities (for example Jonathan’s knowledge of Greek), which, like endurant entities in general, change in different ways while preserving their identity through time". In the section Cascaded Role Sets we describe how sets of object properties can be used to structure Knowledge Subjects with sets of roles.
• "There are real material relational events, like wars and conversations, kicks and kisses, relational entities which call for a treatment along roughly Davidsonian lines, like events of every other sort". Likewise, in section Cascaded Role Sets, we argue that the temporal aspect of roles is closely related to processes and functions acting on the entities.
• "There are family relations, such as`is consanguineous with` or`is the brother of`, and there are comparatives such as is`taller than` or is`warmer than`". In the section Particulars are Unknowable it is discussed that names are merely ciphers as that implies a nomenal view of universals. The relations between data properties within quality dimensions are discussed in Qualtors and by Wittgensten in LW 4.123.

Rab

Page 15: "According to Russell’s History of Western Philosophy the introduction of the new style ‘Rab’ was seen as having initiated a revolution in the treatment of relations and as representing a genuine advance in our understanding which allowed its adherents to overcome the problems which had confronted earlier thinkers, such as Aristotle and the scholastics, who (as Russell says) had been led by their own subject-predicate logic to identify relations with monadic relational properties. ... As we have seen, however, when applied to the different types of relations with which we are pre-theoretically familiar, the Rab account faces considerable difficulties of its own". See also Wittgensteins remark on complex signatures in LW 3.1432.

Ontological Sextet

The ontological sextett ([Smit2005a], p.18, [JaSm2008a], p.103, [ScSe2012], p.32) in Figure SextettOntology is an extension of the classical ontological rectangle with process aspects. From the first to the second reference the naming has beeen changed by the authors:

• Process => Process universal
• Process particular => Process Instance
• Quality universal => Property
• Quality particular => Property instance
• Substantial universal => Universal
• Substantial particular => Instance

We think, that following concepts are equivalent to each other referring to their usage in object oriented programming:

• (^Universal, ◊EQ, ^Class), e.g. ^natPerson
• (^Property, ◊EQ, ^Attribute), e.g. ".Salary"
• (_PropertyInstance, ◊EQ, _AttributeValue), e.g. "blue"

Fig. SextettOntology: Sextett Ontology

On the other side we think, that one should extend the ontological sextett by the concept of relationships (object properties) as visualized in Figure SextettOntologyExtended. Otherwise relations like` (>Pablo_Picasso, ◊painted, >Guernica)` or`(^jurPerson, ◊Employee, ^natPerson)` could not be adequately represented or distinguished from data properties. With the Umo Ontology we propose a upmost minimal top ontology an extension of the ontological sextett including relations and reducing concept names to base symbols.

Fig. SextettOntologyExtended: Extended Sextett Ontology