more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 13126

[filed under theme 7. Existence / E. Categories / 1. Categories ]

Full Idea

Systems of ontological categories are systematizations of our intuitions about generality, intersubstitutability, and identity.

Gist of Idea

Categories systematize our intuitions about generality, substitutability, and identity

Source

Jan Westerhoff (Ontological Categories [2005], §23)

Book Ref

Westerhoff,Jan: 'Ontological Categories' [OUP 2005], p.55


A Reaction

I think we might be able to concede this without conceding the relativism about categories which Westerhoff espouses. I would claim that our 'intuitions' are pretty accurate about the joints of nature, and hence accurate about these criteria.


The 14 ideas from 'Ontological Categories'

How far down before we are too specialised to have a category? [Westerhoff]
Maybe objects in the same category have the same criteria of identity [Westerhoff]
Categories are base-sets which are used to construct states of affairs [Westerhoff]
Ontological categories are like formal axioms, not unique and with necessary membership [Westerhoff]
Categories merely systematise, and are not intrinsic to objects [Westerhoff]
Categories can be ordered by both containment and generality [Westerhoff]
All systems have properties and relations, and most have individuals, abstracta, sets and events [Westerhoff]
Categories are held to explain why some substitutions give falsehood, and others meaninglessness [Westerhoff]
Categories systematize our intuitions about generality, substitutability, and identity [Westerhoff]
Categories as generalities don't give a criterion for a low-level cut-off point [Westerhoff]
Essential kinds may be too specific to provide ontological categories [Westerhoff]
The aim is that everything should belong in some ontological category or other [Westerhoff]
We negate predicates but do not negate names [Westerhoff]
A thing's ontological category depends on what else exists, so it is contingent [Westerhoff]