Talk:Ontology

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ontology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 24, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

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?

Philosophy: Metaphysics Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents 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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Parmenides#Proem|''proem'']] The anchor (#Proem) has been deleted by other users before.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]