What is existence? What is the extent of existence?

 

These are ancient, compelling questions.

 

Questions best addressed by philosophy.

 

Specifically ontology, the study of existence or being.

 

 

Preface

 

The philosophy presented here is a standalone foundational ontology. It isn’t a formal academic paper, however, it is a coherent and functional framework capable of accommodating various worldviews while maintaining ontological integrity.

 

The ontology is practical and accessible, it provides parameters to be employed by the individual directly as opposed to being confined exclusively to academic circles.

 

The philosophy connects epistemology and ontology while addressing their distinctions. It escapes the circularity of abstraction by grounding terms in concrete, real world examples. It explains that existence simply is, that perception and definitions are epistemic tools and not ontological requirements.

 

The intent is not to dictate specifics of systems but to articulate an ontology or general framework from which systems can emerge or be understood.

 

The language and terms are accessible and intuitive. They are approachable and applicable. The definition of existence turns the discussion into more than semantics as it allows us to discern existence in a meaningful and practical way.

 

The primary definition, the definition of existence, is functional, sensible and intuitive. It seems only appropriate to employ the means by which we engage with the world as a means to define existence. As perceptive beings perception is unavoidable in such inquiry.

 

Any philosophical topic presupposes a perceiver as any topic requires a perceiver for comprehension and communication. A perceiver cannot be denied as one exists at this moment. This serves as an undeniable parametric base grounding the abstraction of being in tangible phenomena.

 

The ontology echoes principles established by Parmenides of Elea however Parmenides did not provide explicit, operational definitions with his terms. As a result his philosophy remains rather poetic and abstract.

 

Furthermore Parmenides dismisses change and multiplicity as illusory. The ontology presented here embraces change and multiplicity while maintaining the constancy of existence, reconciling the Parmenides-Heraclitus conflict of change in the process.

 

Also lacking in Parmenides’ ontology is theological versatility. Parmenides’ philosophy prescribes a relatively rigid worldview. Parmenides’ philosophy fails to acknowledge distinctions of deism, theism and pantheism to accommodate them in any such way.

 

The ontology also shares similarities with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza. However the ontology presented is much more concise and accessible without Spinoza’s pantheistic rigidity. Such conciseness, the intentional omission of ethical, moral and political prescription, is precisely what makes the ontology so expansive and fundamental.

 

Other philosophies may seem more robust because they address ethical, political and moral concerns. The ontology presented intentionally does not. The ontology integrates any and all other concepts and systems as parts, things and aspects of existence or as existence itself.

 

Spinoza’s complexity is practically beyond reach for most, and so the novelty here resides in the ontology’s accessibility and conciseness. It makes ontology accessible, it extends philosophy beyond academia.

 

The ontology shares similarities with the work of George Berkeley as well. However Berkeley’s philosophy focuses on perception and is relatively limited by the principle “to be is to be perceived”. Berkeley’s system requires an all-perceiving entity or deity in order to work; the entity must perceive all for all to be.

 

The ontology presented seamlessly integrates science and the scientific method by grounding the abstraction of being in concrete, real world interaction in conjunction with perception.

 

The ontology has unlimited application because it expresses the unavoidable foundation for any discussion of ethics, morality or politics making it relevant to every imaginable system or idea.

 

By nature of the subject itself the ontology isn’t entirely novel. The concepts conveyed are timeless, they are beyond temporal measure or classification. The intent is to present an accessible and practical foundational ontology that everyone can employ and embrace.

 

Daniel J. Lavender