What is ontology? Introduction to the word and the concept

In a philosophical context 0:28
Why ontology is important 1:08
Ontological materialism 1:34
Ontological idealism 1:59
In a non-philosophical context 2:24
Information systems 2:40
Social ontology 3:25
The word ontology comes from two Greek words: "Onto", which means existence, or being real, and "Logia", which means science, or study. The word is used both in a philosophical and non-philosophical context.
ONTOLOGY IN A PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT
In philosophy, ontology is the study of what exists, in general. Examples of philosophical, ontological questions are: What are the fundamental parts of the world? How they are related to each other? Are physical parts more real than immaterial concepts? For example, are physical objects such as shoes more real than the concept of walking? In terms of what exists, what is the relationship between shoes and walking?
Why is ontology important in philosophy?
Philosophers use the concept of ontology to discuss challenging questions to build theories and models, and to better understand the ontological status of the world.
Over time, two major branches of philosophical ontology has developed, namely: Ontological materialism, and ontological idealism.
Ontological materialism
From a philosophical perspective, ontological materialism is the belief that material things, such as particles, chemical processes, and energy, are more real, for example, than the human mind. The belief is that reality exists regardless of human observers.
Ontological idealism
Idealism is the belief that immaterial phenomenon, such as the human mind and consciousness, are more real, for example, than material things. The belief is that reality is constructed in the mind of the observer.
ONTOLOGY IN A NON-PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT
Outside philosophy, ontology is used in a different, more narrow meaning. Here, an ontology is the description of what exist specifically within a determined field. For example, every part that exists in a specific information system. This includes the relationship and hierarchy between these parts.
Unlike the philosophers, these researchers are not primarily interested in discussing if these things are the true essence, core of the system. Nor are they discussing if the parts within the system are more real compared to the processes that take place within the system. Rather, they are focused on naming parts and processes and grouping similar ones together into categories.
Outside philosophy, the word ontology is also use, for example, in social ontology. Here, the idea is to describe society and its different parts and processes. The purpose of this is to understand and describe the underlying structures that affect individuals and groups.
Suggested reading
You can read more about ontology in some of the many articles available online, for example:
www.streetarticles.com/science...
Copyright
Text and video (including audio) © Kent Löfgren, Sweden

[@phoebedeering194]

A lot better than my lecturer's explanation within our assignment, thank you!

[@Joefrogigolo]

This just might be the most well composed and concise brief introduction on ontology to have ever existed.

[@saintqumzy6577]

Same here 😂

[@vinayseth1114]

wow- thanks for this much-needed video. There's a lot of talk and reading in universities that keeps referring to ontology, yet the basic definition eludes many!

[@AnnaPaula3298]

Finally an explanation that I can understand, thank you so much for this video!

[@paololim3513]

I've come across this term for more than seven years trying to distinguish this from epistemology but in all that time, your video is the simplest, most concrete explanation I have ever come across. Well done! Bra jobb och tack!

[@kentlofgren]

Hi! Glad you liked it. Personally, I cringe a bit ;-) Because I want to re-record it, with a bit of better pronunciations and a higher speed. Well, maybe I get around to that someday in a not too distant future. Meanwhile, I am of course very happy that viewers enjoy the current version.

[@paololim3513]

@@kentlofgren jag erkänner att trots min doktorand, är det ett svårt begrepp att förstå.

[@magnustuve]

Thanks. A Word I find used by many to make their statement more muddy rather more concise.

[@solomonreal1977]

You. Have. Found. NOTHING

[@micahwynn162]

Using ontology as an example in class today. You explained this perfectly.

[@PrashantSharma-ql4yb]

Best definition of Ontology so far that I have found.

[@drey67utube]

Thank you very much Kent, you've helped a newbie researcher

[@simonkimberley9863]

Just found this channel by chance. Wish I'd found it sooner, I already had a comprehension of these concepts but your presentation is so concise and elegant I really enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing.

[@nursinggal83]

Thank you this helps me understand the ontological approach used in some nursing terminologies.

[@cristelamejica]

More Philosophy videos like this pls! Thank you. Learned well.

[@zwcdamien]

Stort tack för denna övergripande förklaring till ontologi..!

[@TaoMathBlog]

Thank you, Kent, for your time. I'm interested in trying my hand at discussing philosophical topics on youtube, so yours is a good reference. Thank you.

[@Humanoidable]

Your nickname Tao Math ;) ;) winks intensifies a lot ;)

[@thomasjones9394]

Who agrees with this statement? Ontology helps to differentiate between real things, such as your hand in front of your face, and man-made constructs such as mathematics.

[@koan__23]

Somewhat. Although mathematics are, at the end of the day, a language, and thus could be called a human construct, it's still an artifice that points towards a reality. Just like there is no "law of gravity", there's the just the phenomena as it is. This phenomena does not depend on labels, names and explanation to exist. Much less being studied or not. But the existence of varrying natural principles and logical sequences, as occurring in nature, represented by language, gives us that much more ability to make use and adjust to the phenomenal world, of which we are a part. I'm begining to think that the old Western mind-matter dualism is rather odd! Suppose consciousness arose from matter, what does it experience? Matter. So, it's matter experiencing itself. Suppose consciousness is self-existent, but fabricated matter. So it's mind experiencing itself through matter. And what's attempting to divide the two? The material brain that thinks of itself as an abstract entity? Or an abstract entity (mind) that thinks itself to be material? Although it may sound fun to call out how "heaviness" and "lightness" do not exist in themselves and are abstract names, thus implying the crumbling of our conceptual worldview we took for granted, a valid question stands: if hungry, which piece of bread would we prefer - the heaviest or the lightest? Isn't there still a difference?

[@Erik007]

Can the truth be put into words? Yes, but the words are, of course, not it. They only point to it. Buddhists say “The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.”

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

Disagree. Ontology reveals the inherent paradox within all phenomena that we cannot know what is “real vs unreal”. There is a necessary non-dual admission of all phenomena. If we want the simplest explanation, we cannot create arbitrary categories in attempt to conceptualize objects. Eastern philosophy points to the possibility that all things are interconnected and categorizations themselves are illusory notions of epistemological control. When you really examine ontology and the nuances internal contradictions, you begin to see that we really cannot know anything about reality. Because there is no “real and unreal”. If we can never measure the limits of real and know what’s outside it, do either exist?

[@oliround]

Disagree

[@jkochosc]

I think the idea is that there’s no way to prove (to the satisfaction of some philosophers) that material things aren’t also man-made constructs. Even if everyone agrees that a thing is real and material, it could still be the case that that’s just how humans in general perceive the thing. Since we’re limited, like we obviously can’t see ultraviolet for example, we can only ever perceive a version of something we call real but it always leaves something out and simplifies the actual total real thing, which will forever be incomplete for us.

[@Dev1nci]

Thank you, you provided the exact right amount of information.

[@ahmedlouay]

Many thanks for quite clear explanation

[@dauglaswafulajuma3866]

Thank you. This is brief and to the point

[@ChFernandezRios]

this video helped me understand a research paper, thank you!

[@nika_cm]

So clear, concise and comprehensible. Thank you!

[@kentlofgren]

Thanks!

[@benmartin5869]

Great video, and concise. Thank you!

[@pompunpopularpodcast]

This was such a clear and concise explainantion. Thank you!

[@AnonYmous-lk9qy]

Absolutely invaluable resource. So clean, clear and concise. Thanks so much.

[@kentlofgren]

Glad it was helpful! If I'd remake it today, I'll speed things up, and use a better mic ;-)

[@SusanScott]

Thank you I enjoyed this - clear concise and a pleasure to listen to and read ..

[@Seveniosity]

Thank you! This video was super helpful in defining ontology. My lecture mentioned the philosophical aspect but I found it confusing.

[@dinocardamone9586]

Beautifully clear and practical...thankyou.

[@tjatjiletsoalo621]

Awesome defonition and elaboration on the phenomenon

[@tanialupin]

Thank you! Great video!

[@debdasroy5032]

Excellent indeed

[@meganjastervid]

very clear, appreciated

[@eetherington]

Elegantly explained, thank you

[@183stijn]

thanks that was a clarifying explanation

[@osasaufpc]

A great a concise explanation. Thanks.

[@kennethkunz2449]

Excellent - thank you!

[@tadessebelete495]

Really this is the best of the best

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Good straightforward info!

[@Ezinma88]

Really clear. Thanks!

[@nuzoeziechi8911]

Very helpful, Thank you.

[@edwinjamesgilani6015]

Awesome......very informative explanation 👍

[@SuperSwinkey]

Basically the science of being. It reveals philosophical parts of the world an how they are related to each other. Parallel to that it brings light to objects in the physical world and therefore provides a sense of how our world looks.

[@Cannon_Hannon]

thank you, good sir, your explanation was excellent.

[@Gabriel-qd3vp]

Thank you for this. It was very helpful! ❤

[@DavidBlaze420]

Ontology is also used in the anthropological field of cultural ecology, where it describes the perception of a society regarding their culture in comparison to the meaning of nature or the environment, so the hierarchy between the two. The naturalistic ontology in this case resembling the materialistic ontology, which is predominant in most western societies, assumes there is a dichotomy between culture and nature, because in this ontology we have created systems and structures that separate us from nature, we think of humans and their culture as something different with a clear distinction to what we define as "nature". Other societies and cultures, under the ontology of animism for instance, do not make a distinction between humans and nature, they see their culture as a part of and embedded into nature, there is no conceived separation between the two concepts, hence some groups with an ontology like this would not exploit nature for its resources as drastically as we do. To the concept of ontology also always comes the factor of objective truth, for example the naturalistic ontology denies many perceptions of sorcery and witchcraft any probable reality because they don't conform with science, while in other ontologies these ideas might have an actually experiencable truth to the people and actual functionality for society. In short our ontology is how we see ourselves in the world and what our position is. Every group or even individual has an ontology that they live after, even if it's not a conscious thought.

[@alansmith2000]

Thank you, sir.

[@evancollins2929]

Thank you, sir!

[@giantred]

Thank you for this information :)

[@sajidsaleh538]

thankyou so much for this video ..❤

[@isaiahbraugher9342]

Great video, very informative!

[@lebomolete]

Wow...my understanding has improved a great deal more....thanks Kent... I'm ready now to tackle my PhD

[@kentlofgren]

Happy to help

[@PMF2022]

Very good, thank you!

[@PrakashJyotisa]

Great one! thanks. with respects, Prakash

[@mgatula8424]

I'm very impressed that I search ang found the general meaning of ontology, keep it up friend.

[@kentlofgren]

Wow, thank you!

[@mgatula8424]

@@kentlofgren friend i should be the one saying that thank you very much..

[@CristianGarcia-pd9kh]

WOOOO

[@Minjun1994]

Thank you very much. It helped me a lot for understanding the concept of ontology

[@kentlofgren]

Glad it helped!

[@exxzxxe]

Well done!

[@tarakdas4282]

Excellent video Kent! Understood it in a whiff ... Cheers.

[@kentlofgren]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@bluesheep54]

great video

[@tiffanyclark-grove1989]

Great explanation ❤️

[@kscnc5994]

Thanks very concise

[@wolfwind1]

Thank you. Very helpful.

[@kentlofgren]

I'm always glad to hear that my lectures are appreciated. However, this one is quite old (and slow). I think I need to make a more modern one ;-)

[@LeoMadrid]

Thank you!

[@Bazravish69]

Thank you. I swear that every popular definition of this concept is deliberately inscrutable and reductive.

[@rachanasharma4218]

Thanks bro .....very sweet voice

[@siddharthabhatt5335]

Very clear explanation.

[@kentlofgren]

Glad you think so!

[@smqz8151]

Thank You!!

[@jr13763]

Great.

[@Educationphile]

very informative

[@justindadivoso1775]

Thanks for the upload. Perhaps providing some specific examples would provide more clarity

[@markelric6854]

Awesome, thanks for the explanation

[@kentlofgren]

No worries!

[@Retrogamer71]

Good argument.

[@Kunitiy]

Well said

[@patrickratnayake]

thank for your philosophical explanation of education

[@kentlofgren]

My pleasure.

[@tinawamuga3546]

Thanks for the written words

[@kentlofgren]

Thanks for listening

[@raiesshah2790]

We know it, all of us, some maybe unconscious about it. It simplifies the concepts. Ontologies differ among human beings even within the same group.

[@lathapm7238]

Good brief explanation

[@kentlofgren]

Glad you think so!

[@lucidhooded4147]

I found a AI poetry reference to ontological anarchism. So I came here to see if I can learn something. Looks like I need to research both words a bit more. This seems like a excellent primer.

[@sanmigueltv]

Good video

[@flignar]

Hi Kent, Where can I find an Ontology of meanings? ... a list of categories of the ways distinctions can relate to each other.

[@irshaad_ally]

Thank you

[@skoptook9321]

I needed this, thank you.

[@kentlofgren]

You're so welcome!

[@skoptook9321]

@@kentlofgren it's a confusing topic

[@souksamayphoutchanthavongs6414]

Such a great explanation. Do you any references of what you have shared in your video? I would love use it for my assignment

[@JaneGriffo]

thank you

[@sadiabukhari6689]

Sir what is the role of ontology in curriculum development? Please explain with some examples.

[@gda295]

thank you.

[@hanimahdi7244]

Thanks

[@nidanida3725]

Thanks sir

[@kentlofgren]

So nice of you, all the best!

[@marioriospinot]

Nice.

[@raushaniyandewaris]

Good Job Sir , its really Helpful !

[@Aritul]

So helpful. Thank you. Where does objectivism fit into all of this?

[@mermaid33333]

to understand ontology and epistomology require very very simple examples of day to day life.

[@lycan2494]

Ty bro

[@eaglevns5296]

nice man

[@nosheenakhter5120]

Thanku

[@karkinb]

Hello Kent, Your brief but important message is very helpful. I'm a non academic social change practitioner, designing a framework of social transformation initiative in a emergency socio political situation. It would be a great contribution if you could provide me reference link or sample frameworks on social ontology.

[@Garrusvakarian42066]

What is the difference between "ontology" and "epistemology"? Ontology and epistemology are both considered philosophies because they both include the hypothesis forming stage of establishing theories. Theories are established descriptions of what things, behaviors, and relationships exist, and what those exist as. Hypotheses are educated (sometimes) speculations and guesses about what things are and how we know that. Ontology asks what exists and epistemology asks how we know knowledge is valid. The difference is that ontology is about what things, behaviors, and relationships objectively do exist and exist as, and epistemology is about how humans can say that they can cross the subjective barrier and accurately know that things behaviors and relationships are what they are in an objective way. The answer is utilizing empiricism and the scientific method. Yes, that means that some things behaviors and relationships will always be delegated to the philosophical realm and never enter the empirical realm, for the reason that they are not so. That is because some things exist as actual phenomena and some things only exist inside a human head between their ears as an idea.

[@JaveriaSarib]

V nice

[@kabirali2878]

I have been listening two terms, Ontology & Epistemology for three years yet unable to get a clear explanation.

[@limrosemary8536]

my adult learning teacher who is a coach first mentioned tis .., 🇸🇬

[@TheJoshtheboss]

Would it be correct to assert that the need for Ontology in modern​ times is largely (not completely) replaced by Physics; namely, Quantum Physics. It seems to me that QPh is searching for the same answers as Ontology, while being much more efficient and providing at it.

[@xampaguitas]

Is this same as the ontological in research?

[@jeradclark8533]

So then modal logic is more epistemic than ontological? Particularly in regards to alethic modality.