Talk:Ontology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ontology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | Ontology has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 16, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that ontologists disagree on whether green is real? | |||||||||
| This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The content of Meta-ontology was merged into Ontology on 3 July 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 |
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Ontology and Metaphysics
The article begins with a sentence with a very clear meaning, "It (ontology) is traditionally understood as the subdiscipline of metaphysics focused on the most general features of reality." But later the article goes on to say, "Ontology is closely related to metaphysics but the exact relation of these two disciplines is disputed." What/which relationship between the two disciplines is disputed? Isn't it clear from the beginning, that one is the subdiscipline of another? Maybe this should be clarified better. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Neotaruntius and thanks for your observation. The lead says It (ontology) is TRADITIONALLY understood as the subdiscipline of metaphysics. The definition section says A TRADITIONALLY influential characterization asserts that ontology is a subdiscipline of metaphysics.. So there is no contradition here. The difficulty is that different philosophers use different definitions of ontology. According to some definitions, like the traditional definition, ontology is a subdiscipline of metaphysics. According to others, it isn't. These details are explained in the section "Definition". They are only alluded to in the lead because these details don't belong into the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Repetitive
I wonder if anyone has actually read this article. It is repetitive to the point of being ridiculous. ~2025-32862-09 (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hello and thanks for your comment. According to MOS:INTRO, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. This "repetition" is intentional, it is not an overlooked mistake. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)