Relational ontology is frequently misread. The first and most persistent error: reading it through the lens of idealism. Some assume that because this ontology foregrounds relation over substance, it must be a variant of the age-old claim that “mind makes reality” or that “everything is ultimately mental.” This is a category error. Surgical clarity is required: relational ontology does not posit a primacy of consciousness, subjectivity, or interior experience. It does not privilege perception, cognition, or epistemic access.
Idealism operates with a set of categories—entities, essences, subjects, objects, mental and material—that relational ontology explicitly suspends. In relational ontology, the “things” we speak of are never independent monads, nor are they representations of a mind-independent world. They are perspectival instantiations of systemic potential. The misreading occurs when one substitutes idealist categories—mind, experience, representation—for relational categories—system, fold, instance, construal. Once this substitution is made, every further interpretation is skewed: what was a dynamic interplay of possibilities becomes a static debate over substance and perception.
Consider the temptation: “If relational ontology denies independent objects, it must mean reality is mental.” This inference collapses. The ontology denies substantial independence, not reality itself. “Actualisation” is not equivalent to “perception.” Systems actualise perspectivally; they do so without reference to a mind or subjective experience. Conflating perspectival instantiation with subjective cognition is the single fastest route to turning relational ontology into an accidental idealism.
Another frequent misstep is treating relational ontology as a framework for epistemology rather than ontology. Idealist readings often ask: “How does the mind apprehend these relations?” That question is misplaced. The ontology does not ask how entities are known; it describes the conditions of instantiation. Knowledge is a separate construal. Confusing the two turns the theory upside down: one ends up debating perception rather than relation.
Finally, note the discursive hazard: idealist misreadings invite an endless critique loop. Critics argue that “if reality is relational, it must be mental,” and then attack it as solipsistic. This is precisely the trap the ontology is designed to avoid. By keeping categories straight—systems, folds, instances, perspectival actualisations—one sees that relational ontology is orthogonal to idealism. It is a structural and formal claim about how relations instantiate possibilities, not a metaphysical claim about what consciousness or mind is.
To navigate this terrain: resist importing categories from pre-existing ontologies. If a reader tries to frame relational ontology as “a new form of idealism,” respond with a simple check: ask which category substitution has occurred. The answer will reveal the misreading immediately.
In short: relational ontology does not deny reality. It denies the relevance of mental-substance categories for describing the architecture of being. Idealism is a conceptual lens; relational ontology is a category-neutral analytic. Confusing the two is the first, easiest, and most pernicious misreading—and the one we pre-empt with surgical precision.
Next: why the “external vs internal” distinction—so dear to philosophers, psychologists, and everyday metaphysics—is not a distinction relational ontology recognises.
No comments:
Post a Comment