An ontologist proposes adding 'events' as a distinct category alongside 'substances' and 'properties.' What would be the strongest reason to accept this?
AEvents are nouns in most natural languages
BEvents cannot be reduced to or fully analyzed in terms of substances and their properties
CEvents are more familiar to ordinary experience than substances
DEvents are mentioned in Aristotle's original list
The criterion for a genuinely distinct ontological category is irreducibility — if events cannot be fully analyzed as substances having properties at times, they earn their own category. Grammar and familiarity are not ontological criteria; Aristotle's authority is not sufficient either.
Question 2 True / False
If two category schemes both classify most existing things, the one with fewer categories is generally preferable.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Parsimony is a theoretical virtue, but it must be balanced against adequacy. A scheme with too few categories may be forced to give distorted or implausible analyses of genuine distinctions. The goal is the right number of categories, not the minimum number.
Question 3 Short Answer
What distinguishes an ontological category from a merely grammatical or linguistic category?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: An ontological category marks a difference in the fundamental nature of what exists, not just a difference in how we talk or think. Language and ontology can come apart: two grammatically parallel expressions may refer to radically different kinds of things, and genuine ontological distinctions may not map neatly onto grammatical ones.
Conflating linguistic and ontological categories is a common error. Ontological categories aim to carve reality at its joints; grammatical categories carve up expressions. The fact that 'redness' is a noun does not automatically make redness a substance.