Why Ontology Is a Discipline of Refusal Before It Is a Theory of Being
Ontology is usually imagined as the most ambitious of intellectual projects: a theory of what exists, in general, and without remainder. Its success is measured by scope, generality, and completeness.
This final post argues for a reversal. Ontology earns its legitimacy not by what it includes, but by what it refuses to claim. Before ontology can say what there is, it must discipline itself against the fantasy of completion.
1. The Completion Instinct
Across the history of metaphysics, ontology has been driven by a powerful instinct toward closure. From substance to spacetime, from forms to totalities, the aim has repeatedly been the same: to arrive at a description of reality that leaves nothing out.
This instinct is not merely theoretical. It is affective. Completion promises security, mastery, and a final resting place for explanation.
But as the preceding posts have shown, completion is not a neutral aspiration. It is an ontological error.
2. Why Completion Destroys Ontology
If ontology were to succeed in completing reality — if it were to produce a description that exhausted all possible actuality — it would eliminate the very phenomenon it seeks to describe.
Actuality would be absorbed into structure, and the cut would disappear. What remained would not be reality, but an abstraction mistaken for it.
Ontology does not fail when it cannot finish the world. It fails when it tries.
3. Refusal as Method
What, then, is ontology to do?
The answer is not to abandon generality, but to adopt refusal as method. Ontology must systematically refuse certain moves:
It must refuse to treat systems as inventories.
It must refuse to treat structure as actuality.
It must refuse the view from nowhere.
It must refuse totalising descriptions that erase perspective.
These refusals are not acts of scepticism. They are acts of discipline.
4. Ontology After Gödel
Read ontologically, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems do not merely limit formal systems. They establish a general constraint on any attempt at self-enclosing description.
An ontology capable of describing reality must itself remain open to what it cannot pre-contain. Any ontology that claims otherwise has already crossed the line from theory to mythology.
Completion is not postponed; it is prohibited.
5. Ontology After Relativity
Relativity reinforces this discipline from another direction. By denying privileged frames, it removes the possibility of a single, absolute standpoint from which reality can be surveyed in its entirety.
Ontology that ignores this lesson reintroduces totality under another name.
Ontology that takes it seriously learns restraint.
6. Ontology as Practice, Not Inventory
Once completion is refused, ontology changes character.
Ontology does not tell us what the world is made of. It tells us what claims about the world must not be made.
7. The Final Cut
The cut is not something ontology explains away. It is what ontology must preserve.
Every time ontology is tempted to close itself — to say this is all there is — the cut must be reasserted. Actuality occurs locally, perspectivally, and without guarantee of completion.
Ontology’s task is not to replace actuality with theory, but to keep theory from swallowing actuality.
8. After the Series
This series has argued that:
Possibility does not end; it is structured and enacted.
Instantiation is not a process but a perspectival cut.
Perspective does not require privilege.
Phenomena are ontologically primary.
Systems require incompleteness.
Ontology requires refusal.
If there is a positive lesson to be drawn, it is a modest one:
The world does not need to be finished in order to be real.
Ontology’s highest responsibility is not to complete reality, but to leave it room to occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment