Relational ontology is deceptively simple. Its elegance lies in clarity, its power in precision—but precisely because it is category-conscious, it is frequently misread. Idealists, reductionists, psychologists, and social theorists alike often approach it with frameworks that are incompatible from the outset.
This series is a pre-emptive strike. Its goal is not to rebut critics after the fact, but to expose the category errors before they propagate. Each post identifies a common misreading, explains why it fails, and demonstrates the proper ontological frame.
The posts proceed methodically:
-
Why Relational Ontology Is Not Idealism – the first and most persistent category error.
-
Why “External vs Internal” Is Not a Distinction This Ontology Recognises – boundaries are perspectival, not absolute.
-
Why Perspectival ≠ Subjective – psychology is the wrong lens.
-
Why Relational Epistemology Strengthens, Not Weakens, Scientific Practice – clarifying the conditions of actualisation improves precision.
-
Why This Is Not Social Constructionism – 20th-century frameworks mislead.
-
How Not to Read Relational Ontology – a field guide to spotting category errors early.
-
Why Reductionists Will Misunderstand This Ontology by Default – and how to detect the error before it spreads.
This is not a tour of relational ontology itself. It is a surgical, minimal-patience guide to misreading it, an intellectual prophylactic. By the end, readers will know the common traps, the subtle category substitutions, and the pre-emptive strategies to maintain ontological clarity.
The series is for those who take precision seriously. If you are willing to suspend preconceptions and follow the lattice of relations rather than impose your own categories, these posts will sharpen your understanding—and shield it from predictable distortion.
Next: Why Relational Ontology Is Not Idealism—the first, unavoidable misreading.
No comments:
Post a Comment