Full Idea
I argue against the existence of most of the objects alleged to exist by what we might call 'folk ontology'.
Clarification
'Ontology' is the theory of what exists
Gist of Idea
I say that most of the objects of folk ontology do not exist
Source
Trenton Merricks (Objects and Persons [2003], §1)
Book Reference
Merricks,Trenton: 'Objects and Persons' [OUP 2003], p.1
A Reaction
This is the programme for Merricks's heroic book, denying (quite plausibly) the need for large objects in our ontology. It seems that ontology must multiply its entities prodigiously, or else be austere in the extreme. Is there no middle way?