What is ontology? Introduction to the word and the concept

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 14 лют 2013
  • In a philosophical context 0:28
    Why ontology is important 1:08
    Ontological materialism 1:34
    Ontological idealism 1:59
    In a non-philosophical context 2:24
    Information systems 2:40
    Social ontology 3:25
    The word ontology comes from two Greek words: "Onto", which means existence, or being real, and "Logia", which means science, or study. The word is used both in a philosophical and non-philosophical context.
    ONTOLOGY IN A PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT
    In philosophy, ontology is the study of what exists, in general. Examples of philosophical, ontological questions are: What are the fundamental parts of the world? How they are related to each other? Are physical parts more real than immaterial concepts? For example, are physical objects such as shoes more real than the concept of walking? In terms of what exists, what is the relationship between shoes and walking?
    Why is ontology important in philosophy?
    Philosophers use the concept of ontology to discuss challenging questions to build theories and models, and to better understand the ontological status of the world.
    Over time, two major branches of philosophical ontology has developed, namely: Ontological materialism, and ontological idealism.
    Ontological materialism
    From a philosophical perspective, ontological materialism is the belief that material things, such as particles, chemical processes, and energy, are more real, for example, than the human mind. The belief is that reality exists regardless of human observers.
    Ontological idealism
    Idealism is the belief that immaterial phenomenon, such as the human mind and consciousness, are more real, for example, than material things. The belief is that reality is constructed in the mind of the observer.
    ONTOLOGY IN A NON-PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT
    Outside philosophy, ontology is used in a different, more narrow meaning. Here, an ontology is the description of what exist specifically within a determined field. For example, every part that exists in a specific information system. This includes the relationship and hierarchy between these parts.
    Unlike the philosophers, these researchers are not primarily interested in discussing if these things are the true essence, core of the system. Nor are they discussing if the parts within the system are more real compared to the processes that take place within the system. Rather, they are focused on naming parts and processes and grouping similar ones together into categories.
    Outside philosophy, the word ontology is also use, for example, in social ontology. Here, the idea is to describe society and its different parts and processes. The purpose of this is to understand and describe the underlying structures that affect individuals and groups.
    Suggested reading
    You can read more about ontology in some of the many articles available online, for example:
    www.streetarticles.com/science...
    Copyright
    Text and video (including audio) © Kent Löfgren, Sweden

КОМЕНТАРІ • 235

  • @Dev1nci
    @Dev1nci 5 місяців тому +3

    Thank you, you provided the exact right amount of information.

  • @vinayseth1114
    @vinayseth1114 9 років тому +24

    wow- thanks for this much-needed video. There's a lot of talk and reading in universities that keeps referring to ontology, yet the basic definition eludes many!

  • @paololim3513
    @paololim3513 2 роки тому +20

    I've come across this term for more than seven years trying to distinguish this from epistemology but in all that time, your video is the simplest, most concrete explanation I have ever come across. Well done! Bra jobb och tack!

    • @kentlofgren
      @kentlofgren  2 роки тому +9

      Hi! Glad you liked it. Personally, I cringe a bit ;-) Because I want to re-record it, with a bit of better pronunciations and a higher speed. Well, maybe I get around to that someday in a not too distant future. Meanwhile, I am of course very happy that viewers enjoy the current version.

    • @paololim3513
      @paololim3513 2 роки тому +2

      @@kentlofgren jag erkänner att trots min doktorand, är det ett svårt begrepp att förstå.

  • @AnnaPaula3298
    @AnnaPaula3298 6 років тому +66

    Finally an explanation that I can understand, thank you so much for this video!

  • @davidwu8167
    @davidwu8167 18 днів тому

    Yes! Finally! Finally! a video that actually answers my question about what is ontology in a philosophical context and non-philosophical context! I have looked at countless videos, papers, and chatgpt answers, but nothing is as clear as this video.

  • @phoebedeering194
    @phoebedeering194 7 років тому +117

    A lot better than my lecturer's explanation within our assignment, thank you!

    • @JeagerTv
      @JeagerTv 2 роки тому

      This just might be the most well composed and concise brief introduction on ontology to have ever existed.

    • @saintqumzy6577
      @saintqumzy6577 2 роки тому

      Same here 😂

  • @thomasjones9394
    @thomasjones9394 2 роки тому +17

    Who agrees with this statement? Ontology helps to differentiate between real things, such as your hand in front of your face, and man-made constructs such as mathematics.

    • @koan__23
      @koan__23 2 роки тому +10

      Somewhat. Although mathematics are, at the end of the day, a language, and thus could be called a human construct, it's still an artifice that points towards a reality. Just like there is no "law of gravity", there's the just the phenomena as it is. This phenomena does not depend on labels, names and explanation to exist. Much less being studied or not.
      But the existence of varrying natural principles and logical sequences, as occurring in nature, represented by language, gives us that much more ability to make use and adjust to the phenomenal world, of which we are a part.
      I'm begining to think that the old Western mind-matter dualism is rather odd! Suppose consciousness arose from matter, what does it experience? Matter. So, it's matter experiencing itself. Suppose consciousness is self-existent, but fabricated matter. So it's mind experiencing itself through matter. And what's attempting to divide the two? The material brain that thinks of itself as an abstract entity? Or an abstract entity (mind) that thinks itself to be material?
      Although it may sound fun to call out how "heaviness" and "lightness" do not exist in themselves and are abstract names, thus implying the crumbling of our conceptual worldview we took for granted, a valid question stands: if hungry, which piece of bread would we prefer - the heaviest or the lightest? Isn't there still a difference?

    • @Erik007
      @Erik007 2 роки тому

      Can the truth be put into words?
      Yes, but the words are, of course, not it. They only point to it. Buddhists say “The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.”

    • @blahblahblacksheep6347
      @blahblahblacksheep6347 Рік тому +4

      Disagree. Ontology reveals the inherent paradox within all phenomena that we cannot know what is “real vs unreal”. There is a necessary non-dual admission of all phenomena. If we want the simplest explanation, we cannot create arbitrary categories in attempt to conceptualize objects. Eastern philosophy points to the possibility that all things are interconnected and categorizations themselves are illusory notions of epistemological control. When you really examine ontology and the nuances internal contradictions, you begin to see that we really cannot know anything about reality. Because there is no “real and unreal”. If we can never measure the limits of real and know what’s outside it, do either exist?

    • @oliround
      @oliround Рік тому

      Disagree

    • @jkochosc
      @jkochosc Рік тому +2

      I think the idea is that there’s no way to prove (to the satisfaction of some philosophers) that material things aren’t also man-made constructs. Even if everyone agrees that a thing is real and material, it could still be the case that that’s just how humans in general perceive the thing. Since we’re limited, like we obviously can’t see ultraviolet for example, we can only ever perceive a version of something we call real but it always leaves something out and simplifies the actual total real thing, which will forever be incomplete for us.

  • @PrashantSharma-ql4yb
    @PrashantSharma-ql4yb 4 роки тому +5

    Best definition of Ontology so far that I have found.

  • @micahwynn162
    @micahwynn162 7 років тому +6

    Using ontology as an example in class today. You explained this perfectly.

  • @magnustuve
    @magnustuve 5 років тому +19

    Thanks. A Word I find used by many to make their statement more muddy rather more concise.

  • @simonkimberley9863
    @simonkimberley9863 6 років тому +1

    Just found this channel by chance. Wish I'd found it sooner, I already had a comprehension of these concepts but your presentation is so concise and elegant I really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing.

  • @drey67utube
    @drey67utube 9 років тому +11

    Thank you very much Kent, you've helped a newbie researcher

  • @nursinggal83
    @nursinggal83 5 років тому +6

    Thank you this helps me understand the ontological approach used in some nursing terminologies.

  • @cristelamejica
    @cristelamejica 5 років тому +3

    More Philosophy videos like this pls! Thank you. Learned well.

  • @TaoMathBlog
    @TaoMathBlog 9 років тому +14

    Thank you, Kent, for your time. I'm interested in trying my hand at discussing philosophical topics on youtube, so yours is a good reference. Thank you.

    • @Humanoidable
      @Humanoidable 4 роки тому

      Your nickname
      Tao Math
      ;)
      ;)
      winks intensifies
      a lot
      ;)

  • @ChFernandezRios
    @ChFernandezRios 6 років тому +2

    this video helped me understand a research paper, thank you!

  • @Seveniosity
    @Seveniosity 7 років тому +4

    Thank you! This video was super helpful in defining ontology. My lecture mentioned the philosophical aspect but I found it confusing.

  • @ahmedlouay
    @ahmedlouay 9 років тому +14

    Many thanks for quite clear explanation

  • @nika_cm
    @nika_cm 2 роки тому +6

    So clear, concise and comprehensible. Thank you!

  • @pompunpopularpodcast
    @pompunpopularpodcast 2 роки тому +3

    This was such a clear and concise explainantion. Thank you!

  • @dauglaswafulajuma3866
    @dauglaswafulajuma3866 6 років тому +4

    Thank you. This is brief and to the point

  • @AnonYmous-lk9qy
    @AnonYmous-lk9qy 3 роки тому +3

    Absolutely invaluable resource. So clean, clear and concise. Thanks so much.

    • @kentlofgren
      @kentlofgren  3 роки тому

      Glad it was helpful! If I'd remake it today, I'll speed things up, and use a better mic ;-)

  • @SusanScott
    @SusanScott 6 років тому +2

    Thank you I enjoyed this - clear concise and a pleasure to listen to and read ..

  • @tjatjiletsoalo621
    @tjatjiletsoalo621 3 роки тому +1

    Awesome defonition and elaboration on the phenomenon

  • @benmartin5869
    @benmartin5869 5 років тому +1

    Great video, and concise. Thank you!

  • @dinocardamone9586
    @dinocardamone9586 3 роки тому +1

    Beautifully clear and practical...thankyou.

  • @zwcdamien
    @zwcdamien 6 років тому +1

    Stort tack för denna övergripande förklaring till ontologi..!

  • @CristianGarcia-pd9kh
    @CristianGarcia-pd9kh 3 роки тому +10

    WOOOO

  • @Cannon_Hannon
    @Cannon_Hannon 6 місяців тому

    thank you, good sir, your explanation was excellent.

  • @lebomolete
    @lebomolete 3 роки тому +2

    Wow...my understanding has improved a great deal more....thanks Kent... I'm ready now to tackle my PhD

  • @edwinjamesgilani6015
    @edwinjamesgilani6015 5 років тому +1

    Awesome......very informative explanation 👍

  • @mgatula8424
    @mgatula8424 3 роки тому +3

    I'm very impressed that I search ang found the general meaning of ontology, keep it up friend.

    • @kentlofgren
      @kentlofgren  3 роки тому +1

      Wow, thank you!

    • @mgatula8424
      @mgatula8424 3 роки тому

      @@kentlofgren friend i should be the one saying that thank you very much..

  • @tanialupin
    @tanialupin 10 років тому +2

    Thank you! Great video!

  • @SuperSwinkey
    @SuperSwinkey 5 років тому +1

    Basically the science of being. It reveals philosophical parts of the world an how they are related to each other. Parallel to that it brings light to objects in the physical world and therefore provides a sense of how our world looks.

  • @eetherington
    @eetherington Рік тому

    Elegantly explained, thank you

  • @osasaufpc
    @osasaufpc 4 роки тому +1

    A great a concise explanation. Thanks.

  • @Gabriel-qd3vp
    @Gabriel-qd3vp Рік тому +1

    Thank you for this. It was very helpful! ❤

  • @debdasroy5032
    @debdasroy5032 Рік тому +1

    Excellent indeed

  • @183stijn
    @183stijn 8 років тому +2

    thanks that was a clarifying explanation

  • @justindadivoso1775
    @justindadivoso1775 5 місяців тому

    Thanks for the upload. Perhaps providing some specific examples would provide more clarity

  • @flignar
    @flignar 9 років тому +2

    Hi Kent,
    Where can I find an Ontology of meanings? ... a list of categories of the ways distinctions can relate to each other.

  • @Minjun1994
    @Minjun1994 3 роки тому +2

    Thank you very much. It helped me a lot for understanding the concept of ontology

  • @tadessebelete495
    @tadessebelete495 10 місяців тому

    Really this is the best of the best

  • @kennethkunz2449
    @kennethkunz2449 Рік тому +1

    Excellent - thank you!

  • @meganjastervid
    @meganjastervid 2 роки тому +1

    very clear, appreciated

  • @isaiahbraugher9342
    @isaiahbraugher9342 2 роки тому +1

    Great video, very informative!

  • @nuzoeziechi8911
    @nuzoeziechi8911 10 років тому +1

    Very helpful, Thank you.

  • @sajidsaleh538
    @sajidsaleh538 4 роки тому +1

    thankyou so much for this video ..❤

  • @Bazravish69
    @Bazravish69 9 місяців тому

    Thank you. I swear that every popular definition of this concept is deliberately inscrutable and reductive.

  • @giantred
    @giantred 5 років тому +1

    Thank you for this information :)

  • @tarakdas4282
    @tarakdas4282 3 роки тому +1

    Excellent video Kent! Understood it in a whiff ... Cheers.

  • @souksamayphoutchanthavongs6414
    @souksamayphoutchanthavongs6414 7 років тому +1

    Such a great explanation. Do you any references of what you have shared in your video? I would love use it for my assignment

  • @DavidBlaze420
    @DavidBlaze420 6 років тому +4

    Ontology is also used in the anthropological field of cultural ecology, where it describes the perception of a society regarding their culture in comparison to the meaning of nature or the environment, so the hierarchy between the two. The naturalistic ontology in this case resembling the materialistic ontology, which is predominant in most western societies, assumes there is a dichotomy between culture and nature, because in this ontology we have created systems and structures that separate us from nature, we think of humans and their culture as something different with a clear distinction to what we define as "nature". Other societies and cultures, under the ontology of animism for instance, do not make a distinction between humans and nature, they see their culture as a part of and embedded into nature, there is no conceived separation between the two concepts, hence some groups with an ontology like this would not exploit nature for its resources as drastically as we do. To the concept of ontology also always comes the factor of objective truth, for example the naturalistic ontology denies many perceptions of sorcery and witchcraft any probable reality because they don't conform with science, while in other ontologies these ideas might have an actually experiencable truth to the people and actual functionality for society. In short our ontology is how we see ourselves in the world and what our position is. Every group or even individual has an ontology that they live after, even if it's not a conscious thought.

  • @Ezinma88
    @Ezinma88 6 років тому +1

    Really clear. Thanks!

  • @sadiabukhari6689
    @sadiabukhari6689 4 роки тому +3

    Sir what is the role of ontology in curriculum development? Please explain with some examples.

  • @lathapm7238
    @lathapm7238 3 роки тому +2

    Good brief explanation

  • @alansmith2000
    @alansmith2000 Рік тому +1

    Thank you, sir.

  • @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
    @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time 5 років тому +1

    Good straightforward info!

  • @PMF2022
    @PMF2022 3 роки тому +1

    Very good, thank you!

  • @PrakashJyotisa
    @PrakashJyotisa 4 роки тому +1

    Great one! thanks. with respects, Prakash

  • @evancollins2929
    @evancollins2929 5 років тому +1

    Thank you, sir!

  • @exxzxxe
    @exxzxxe 5 років тому +1

    Well done!

  • @rachanasharma4218
    @rachanasharma4218 4 роки тому

    Thanks bro .....very sweet voice

  • @tiffanyclark-grove1989
    @tiffanyclark-grove1989 5 років тому +1

    Great explanation ❤️

  • @bluesheep54
    @bluesheep54 6 років тому +1

    great video

  • @lucidhooded4147
    @lucidhooded4147 Рік тому

    I found a AI poetry reference to ontological anarchism. So I came here to see if I can learn something. Looks like I need to research both words a bit more. This seems like a excellent primer.

  • @Aritul
    @Aritul 10 років тому

    So helpful. Thank you. Where does objectivism fit into all of this?

  • @patrickratnayake
    @patrickratnayake 3 роки тому +1

    thank for your philosophical explanation of education

  • @raiesshah2790
    @raiesshah2790 6 років тому +2

    We know it, all of us, some maybe unconscious about it. It simplifies the concepts. Ontologies differ among human beings even within the same group.

  • @wolfwind1
    @wolfwind1 2 роки тому

    Thank you. Very helpful.

    • @kentlofgren
      @kentlofgren  2 роки тому +1

      I'm always glad to hear that my lectures are appreciated. However, this one is quite old (and slow). I think I need to make a more modern one ;-)

  • @siddharthabhatt5335
    @siddharthabhatt5335 3 роки тому

    Very clear explanation.

  • @jeradclark8533
    @jeradclark8533 8 років тому

    So then modal logic is more epistemic than ontological? Particularly in regards to alethic modality.

  • @kscnc5994
    @kscnc5994 5 років тому +1

    Thanks very concise

  • @tinawamuga3546
    @tinawamuga3546 3 роки тому +1

    Thanks for the written words

  • @xampaguitas
    @xampaguitas 4 роки тому

    Is this same as the ontological in research?

  • @kabirali2878
    @kabirali2878 9 місяців тому

    I have been listening two terms, Ontology & Epistemology for three years yet unable to get a clear explanation.

  • @markelric6854
    @markelric6854 3 роки тому +1

    Awesome, thanks for the explanation

  • @TheJoshtheboss
    @TheJoshtheboss 7 років тому

    Would it be correct to assert that the need for Ontology in modern​ times is largely (not completely) replaced by Physics; namely, Quantum Physics. It seems to me that QPh is searching for the same answers as Ontology, while being much more efficient and providing at it.

  • @levitherriault6859
    @levitherriault6859 3 роки тому

    Are any of these the same as Ontological Pluralism?

  • @karkinb
    @karkinb 7 років тому +1

    Hello Kent, Your brief but important message is very helpful. I'm a non academic social change practitioner, designing a framework of social transformation initiative in a emergency socio political situation. It would be a great contribution if you could provide me reference link or sample frameworks on social ontology.

  • @Kunitiy
    @Kunitiy 4 роки тому +1

    Well said

  • @smqz8151
    @smqz8151 4 роки тому +1

    Thank You!!

  • @LeoMadrid
    @LeoMadrid Рік тому

    Thank you!

  • @Educationphile
    @Educationphile 2 роки тому +1

    very informative

  • @jr13763
    @jr13763 7 років тому +3

    Great.

  • @Retrogamer71
    @Retrogamer71 5 років тому +1

    Good argument.

  • @skoptook9321
    @skoptook9321 3 роки тому +2

    I needed this, thank you.

  • @irshaad_ally
    @irshaad_ally 2 роки тому

    Thank you

  • @raushaniyandewaris
    @raushaniyandewaris 6 років тому +3

    Good Job Sir , its really Helpful !

  • @jeyarajjeya7080
    @jeyarajjeya7080 Рік тому +1

    can you give two examples each of realist, idealist and materialist ontological premises about the social reality.

    • @kentlofgren
      @kentlofgren  Рік тому +1

      Realist ontological premises about social reality are assumptions that social entities and phenomena have an objective, mind-independent existence. Idealist ontological ditto refers to social entities and phenomena dependent on human perceptions and ideas (hence the name "idealism"). And finally, materialist ditto refers to the assumptions that social entities and phenomena can be explained by or reduced to material or physical entities, processes, or conditions. This perspective emphasizes the role of material factors in shaping social reality and guiding the development of human societies. There is some overlap between realists and materialists, but realism is broader, whereas materialism says everything depends on material entities. I hope that helps you.

  • @sanmigueltv
    @sanmigueltv 5 років тому +1

    Good video

  • @MichaelAlexander1967
    @MichaelAlexander1967 6 років тому +3

    What's the difference between "real" & "more real"? Why do you use the term "more real"? "Shoes" is a noun, & "Walking" is a verb; so they both are real, but they belong to separate parts of speech. Right? Thanks.

    • @John-lf3xf
      @John-lf3xf 5 років тому

      Michael's ML&ATG has to do with modality and epistemic possibility

  • @nidanida3725
    @nidanida3725 3 роки тому +1

    Thanks sir

  • @GottfriedLeibnizYT
    @GottfriedLeibnizYT 3 роки тому

    I know very well the difference between ontological propositions and epistemic propositions but what's the meaning of "ontological status" and how does it differ from "epistemic status"?
    Thanks.

    • @MiloMay
      @MiloMay 2 роки тому

      I guess ontological status is the current state the object is existing in and epistemic status is the current state of knowledge of an object.

    • @SawYouDie
      @SawYouDie Рік тому

      And then teleological questions come into play.

  • @marioriospinot
    @marioriospinot 6 років тому +1

    Nice.

  • @JaneGriffo
    @JaneGriffo 5 років тому +1

    thank you

  • @gda295
    @gda295 9 років тому

    thank you.

  • @JaveriaSarib
    @JaveriaSarib 5 років тому +1

    V nice

  • @mermaid33333
    @mermaid33333 7 років тому

    to understand ontology and epistomology require very very simple examples of day to day life.

  • @hanimahdi7244
    @hanimahdi7244 Рік тому

    Thanks