Escaping the Snares of Ontology -- via Pragmatics

Speranza

Abstract of essay by J. Cooper, online -- in "Neoscholasticism", vol. 62

In a very influential article ("Aristotle on the snares of ontology", in "New essays on Plato and Aristotle", 1965), [Oxford philsosopher] G. E. L Owen has argued that there are at least three distinct "uses" [never 'meanings' or 'senses'] of existence present in Aristotle's texts.

Owen also claimed that Aristotle failed to recognize these.

-- trust Grice to come to rally to the defense of the underdog(ma).

"Against Owen, Cooper argues that there are alternative interpretations of Aristotle's texts on existence which are as equally plausible as those interpretations of these texts offered by Owen."

On top of that, Grice argued that, if you are unhappy with Aristotle on 'being' start using 'izz' -- especially as you should distinguish it from 'hazz' --.

"In particular it is argued that Owen fails to take as seriously as he should the existential status of universals and the role of real causality, especially formal causality in Aristotle's account of existence."

Cooper's interpretation leads him to conclude that "although Aristotle may be caught in snares, he is not caught in the snares of ontology laid by Owen."

-- on top of that, Grice said:

"Do not multiply SNARES beyond necessity".

I.e. do not multiply alleged senses or uses of 'being' beyond necessity.

And if you DO need to multiply, use different words: e.g. restrict essential existence to 'izz' -- 'izz or izz not -- that is the question'. And use 'hazz' for accidental (i.e. otiose) stuff.