---
title: "<ONTOLOGICALANALYSIS />"
language: en
date: 2026-09-12
canonical: "https://andreasvieth.de/en/ppi/ontological-analysis/"
format: markdown
generator: "TYPO3 LLMs.txt Extension"
---

# <ONTOLOGICALANALYSIS />

Export the page as structured markup – optimized for machine processing and reuse. (Use your browser’s Back button to return to the website view.)

 [ Read markup ](https://andreasvieth.de/en/ppi/ontological-analysis/.md.md)

## <ONTOLOGICALANALYSIS />

<ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> asks what a text tacitly presupposes before it even begins to argue: **What must there be for its claims to be true?** Every philosophical text—whether it is aware of this or not—operates with a worldview: it posits entities, attributes properties to them, assumes dependencies among them, and decides—usually implicitly—questions such as persistence, causality, and necessity. <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> renders this hidden categorial architecture visible and examines it for consistency.

The principal methodological instrument derives from C. D. Broad and consists in a **strict categorial distinction** that is persistently violated in philosophical texts: the distinction between **Continuants** and **Occurrents**. Continuants are enduring substances that *persist* through time—a person, an organism, an object. Occurrents are temporally bounded events or processes that *unfold* and possess no identity independent of time. Many seemingly profound philosophical problems—concerning consciousness, freedom, causality, or identity—arise or disappear depending on whether their objects are modeled as Continuants or as Occurrents. This distinction is not a matter of terminological luxury: it is a categorial choice with immediate argumentative consequences.

Equally fundamental is Broad’s differentiation between **immanent and transeunt causation**. Immanent causation designates effects *within* a Continuant—for example, when an organism performs a function from within itself. Transeunt causation designates effects *between* distinct Continuants—a billiard ball strikes another. Texts that discuss mental causes, normative efficacy, or social structures frequently conflate these two types of causation without realizing it, thereby generating pseudo-problems or concealed inconsistencies.

Alongside these Broad-specific tools, <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> employs **grounding analysis**: the reconstruction of non-causal dependencies. When a text states that normative properties are “grounded” in natural properties, that consciousness “emerges” from neural processes, or that social facts “supervene” on individual actions, these are claims about ontological grounding—not causal explanations. The distinction is philosophically decisive. Grounding asks: What *supports* what, beyond causation?

Finally, the module identifies a text’s **ontological commitments** in Quine’s sense: What must exist for the quantificational structure of its sentences to be true? Anyone who speaks of “the value of freedom,” “the norm of justice,” or “mental states” has—whether intentionally or not—committed themselves to certain categories of entities. Rendering these commitments visible is one of the most effective forms of philosophical criticism.

→ <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> presupposes <BEGRIFFSANALYSE /> as a **strong prerequisite**: ontological terms are terminologically laden, and without conceptual clarification, category errors threaten to arise even before the analysis proper begins. → Its aim is **categorial precision**, not theory construction: disentangling the fundamental metaphysical structure of a text before normative, epistemic, or semantic conclusions are drawn. → Its most sensitive concern is the **separation of levels**: ontological posits must not be conflated with epistemic states or normative judgments—a boundary that is persistently crossed in philosophical texts and that <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE /> consistently marks.

#### <ONTOLOGICALANALYSIS> ... </ONTOLOGICALANALYSIS>

```markup
<PTL>

  <ZIELE>
    <ZIEL>Identification and categorial ordering of a text’s fundamental metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of entities, properties, and relations</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Strict distinction between persisting substances (Continuants) and temporally bound events (Occurrents) according to C. D. Broad</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Reconstruction of the structure of dependence and metaphysical foundation (Grounding): What depends on what, beyond causal explanation?</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Analysis of modality, identity, and persistence as fundamental ontological problems of the text</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Disclosure of ontological commitments (Quine): Which entities must the theory presented in the text acknowledge?</ZIEL>
    <ZIEL>Interface mapping: How does the ontology of the text relate to semantics, epistemology, and normativity?</ZIEL>
  </ZIELE>

  <THEMA>Fundamental metaphysical assumptions: categories, structures, and dependencies of being</THEMA>

  <PERSPEKTIVEN>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Categorial (substance, attribute, relation, event)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Temporal (Continuant vs. Occurrent; persistence and identity)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Causal (immanent vs. transeunt causation according to Broad)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Modal (necessity, possibility, disposition, essence)</PERSPEKTIVE>
    <PERSPEKTIVE>Hierarchical (fundamentality, supervenience, Grounding, emergence)</PERSPEKTIVE>
  </PERSPEKTIVEN>

  <METHODEN>
    <METHODE>Grounding/dependence analysis: Disclosure of non-causal dependencies (metaphysical foundation, constitution, realization)</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Continuant vs. Occurrent test (Broad): Examination of whether phenomena are modeled as persisting substances or purely temporally bound events</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Reduction and supervenience check: Examination of whether phenomena are to be reduced to a fundamental level (physical, naturalistic, etc.)</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Modal and dispositional analysis: Analysis of claims concerning possibility and necessity, dispositions, and essences</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Identity and persistence tests: Explication of the criteria determining when something remains the same; treatment of change and relationality</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Analysis of textual evidence with brief interpretation: Quotations and concise ontological readings, including alternative interpretations of ambiguous passages</METHODE>
    <METHODE>Interface mapping: Mapping of ontology ↔ semantics / epistemology / normativity; avoidance of conflating levels</METHODE>
  </METHODEN>

  <KERNFRAGEN>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Kategorien">Which ontological categories structure the text—substance, attribute, relation, event, universal, number?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Continuant/Occurrent">Are the primary entities persisting substances (Continuants) or temporally bound events (Occurrents)—and is this boundary clearly drawn?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Fundamentalität">Which properties are regarded as fundamental and which as derivative—and how is dependence justified?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Grounding">Which relations of dependence (Grounding) are implied—what grounds what, beyond causal explanation?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Modalität">How is modality understood—as metaphysical necessity, disposition, or contingency?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Identität/Persistenz">How are identity and persistence conceived—endurantism or perdurantism? Which criteria of sameness apply?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Kausalität">What role does causation play—and is a strict distinction drawn between immanent causation (within a Continuant) and transeunt causation (between Continuants)?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Sui-generis">Are mental, normative, or mathematical entities ontologically autonomous—or are they reduced?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Commitment">Which ontological commitments (Quine) are generated by the language of the text—what must exist for its quantified statements to be true?</KERNFRAGE>
    <KERNFRAGE dim="Normativität">How does the ontology of the text relate to ethics and normativity—are normative properties ontologically grounded or posited as irreducible?</KERNFRAGE>
  </KERNFRAGEN>

  <KATEGORIEN>
    <KATEGORIE>Being / existence</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Continuant vs. Occurrent (Broad)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Immanent vs. transeunt causation (Broad)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Substance</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Properties (universals / tropes)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Relations (internal / external)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Events / processes</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Facts / states of affairs (truthmaker categories)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Natural kinds</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Mereology (part–whole)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Causation (powers, laws, regularities)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Dispositions</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Fundamental / derivative (fundamentality, emergence)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Modality (necessity, possibility, contingency)</KATEGORIE>
    <KATEGORIE>Identity and persistence</KATEGORIE>
  </KATEGORIEN>

  <REGELN>
    <REGEL1>Systematically identify all passages in which claims are made about the existence, nature, or dependence of entities—explicitly or implicitly</REGEL1>
    <REGEL2>Apply Broad’s Continuant vs. Occurrent test: Does the text model its entities as substances persisting through time or as temporally bound events?</REGEL2>
    <REGEL3>Examine relations of dependence: Distinguish strictly between causal explanation and non-causal foundation (Grounding, supervenience, constitution)</REGEL3>
    <REGEL4>Analyze modal claims: Which properties are regarded as necessary, which as contingent, and which as dispositional?</REGEL4>
    <REGEL5>Examine ontological commitments: Over which entities does the text quantify, and what must therefore exist?</REGEL5>
    <REGEL6>Map interfaces: Where does the text shift from the ontological to the epistemic, semantic, or normative level—and is this shift argumentatively justified?</REGEL6>
  </REGELN>

  <ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
    <KRITERIUM>Categorial precision: Are Continuant and Occurrent, as well as immanent and transeunt causation, consistently distinguished?</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Complete reconstruction of the structure of dependence and metaphysical foundation, supported by textual evidence</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Clear separation of ontological Grounding from causal explanation</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Demonstration of ontological commitments based on the language and quantificational structure of the text</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Separation of levels: no conflation of ontological, epistemic, and normative claims</KRITERIUM>
    <KRITERIUM>Close adherence to the text and internal consistency; alternative reading of ambiguous passages</KRITERIUM>
  </ANALYSEKRITERIEN>

  <ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE
    ziel="Identifikation und Ordnung der metaphysischen Grundannahmen über Entitäten, Eigenschaften, Modalitäten und Abhängigkeitsstrukturen"
    kernbegriffe="Existenz, Sein, Substanz, Eigenschaft, Relation, Abhängigkeit, Ursache, Grund, Notwendigkeit, Möglichkeit, Identität"
    typischeVerben="existieren, sein, bestehen aus, verursachen, bedingen, determinieren, reduzieren auf, supervenieren, fundieren"
    fragetypen="Was gibt es grundlegend? Ist X auf Y zurückführbar? Was ist das Wesen von X? Realismus vs. Antirealismus?"
    analyseFokus="kategorial|temporal|kausal|modal|hierarchisch"
    methodik="stufenweise|systematisch|kategorial-scharf"
    schnittstellen="Semantik|Epistemologie|Normativität"
  >
    <!-- Analysis steps:
    1. Identify all passages containing fundamental ontological assumptions (existence, nature, dependence)
    2. Apply the Continuant/Occurrent test: persisting substance or temporally bound event?
    3. Examine the type of causation: immanent (within a substance) or transeunt (between substances)?
    4. Reconstruct the Grounding structure: What grounds what—beyond causal explanation?
    5. Examine modal claims: necessary / contingent / dispositional?
    6. Analyze ontological commitments based on the quantificational structure
    7. Map interfaces with semantics, epistemology, and normativity; mark shifts between levels
    8. Provide textual evidence with a brief ontological interpretation and, where appropriate, an alternative reading
    -->
  </ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>

  <METAPRUEFUNGEN>
    <PRUEFEKOHAERENZ />
    <PRUEFETEXTBEZUG />
    <FINDEARGUMENTALTERNATIVE />
    <PRUEFEANNAHMEN />
    <ERLAEUTERERELEVANZ />
  </METAPRUEFUNGEN>

  <TEXTERSTELLUNG>
    <ANTWORESTRIKTANALYSEORIENTIERT />
  </TEXTERSTELLUNG>

</PTL>
```

 *<ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE> ... </ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>*