Abstract

If this is accepted one may ask why one should not use the term "ontology" for this enterprise. It is the structure of being which is under inquiry, and this is what ontology is supposed to do. But the difficulty is that there are structures of less universality like nature, man, history, which also precede in logical dignity anything concrete in their respective spheres but which are not structures of being as such, and which, consequently, are not objects of ontology in the strict sense of the word. Therefore, if the word "metaphysics" can be saved from its supranaturalistic connotations, it should be used. If, however, this is impossible, the term ontology must be enlarged so that it embraces all structures which constitute reality. Both ways are open.