Abstract

AbstractThis article outlines a program of ethnoontology that brings together empirical research in the ethnosciences with ontological debates in philosophy. First, we survey empirical evidence from heterogeneous cultural contexts and disciplines. Second, we propose a model of cross‐cultural relations between ontologies beyond a simple divide between universalist and relativist models. Third, we argue for an integrative model of ontology building that synthesizes insights from different fields such as biological taxonomy, cognitive science, cultural anthropology, and political ecology. We conclude by arguing that a program of ethnoontology provides philosophers both with insights about traditional issues such as debates about natural kinds and with novel strategies for connecting philosophy with pressing global issues such as the conservation of local environments and the self‐determination of Indigenous communities.

Highlights

  • Philosophers often imagine cross-cultural variation of ontologies through ethnographic thought experiments such as Quine's (1960) “gavagai” and anecdotes such as the infamous “Eskimo words for snow” (Martin, 1986)

  • We argue that ethnoontology can connect ontological debates in academic philosophy to applied questions about local livelihoods and sustainability in global contexts

  • Why should philosophers accept this challenge of engaging with the cross-cultural complexity of ontological systems rather than addressing ontological questions through more traditional methods such as thought experiments involving carefully constructed possible worlds? In conclusion, we provide both an internal and an external reason for philosophers to embrace ethnoontology

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Philosophers often imagine cross-cultural variation of ontologies through ethnographic thought experiments such as Quine's (1960) “gavagai” and anecdotes such as the infamous “Eskimo words for snow” (Martin, 1986). A model of partially overlapping ontologies provides a helpful starting point for relating ontological systems across cultures and raises further questions about different practices of ontology building Research in fields such as ethnobiology, ethnoecology, and ethnomedicine tends to be highly interdisciplinary and brings together evidence from diverse disciplines such as biological taxonomy, cognitive psychology, cultural anthropology, and political ecology. While many ontologists have acknowledged that ontologies reflect non-epistemic concerns (Conix, 2018; Ludwig, 2016; Mikkola, 2015), the four-factor model of ethnoontology can provide a much richer account of social concerns in ontology building while simultaneously acknowledging the importance of material and cognitive factors in the sense of Figure 2 Both debates about natural kinds and non-epistemic values illustrate how philosophical debates can benefit from engaging with the empirical complexity of ontology building across cultures.

WORKS CITED
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call