Nathaniel Gan

In ontological debates, realists typically argue for their view via one of two approaches. The _Quinean approach_ employs naturalistic arguments that say our scientific practices give us reason to affirm the existence of a kind of entity. The _Fregean approach_ employs linguistic arguments that say we should affirm the existence of a kind of entity because our discourse contains reference to those entities. These two approaches are often seen as distinct, with _indispensability arguments_ typically associated with the former, but not the latter, approach. This paper argues for a connection between the two approaches on the grounds that the typical arguments of the Fregean approach can be reformulated as indispensability arguments. This connection is significant in at least two ways. First, it implies that indispensability arguments provide a common framework within which to compare the Quinean and Fregean approaches, which allows for a more precise delineation of the two approaches. Second, it implies the possibility of analogical relations that allow proponents and opponents of each approach to draw upon the ideas that have been developed regarding the other.

There are two ways of approaching an ontological debate: ontological realism recommends that metaphysicians seek to discover deep ontological facts of the matter, while ontological anti-realism denies that there are such facts; both views sometimes run into difficulties. This paper suggests an approach to ontology that begins with conceptual analysis and takes the results of that analysis as a guide for which metaontological view to hold. It is argued that in some cases, the functions for which we employ a part of our conceptual scheme might give us reasons to posit ontological facts regarding certain objects. The proposed approach recommends ontological realism about an object just in case our conceptual scheme gives us reason to. This yields a mixed overall metaontological view that adopts ontological realism to some issues and ontological anti-realism to others, and that avoids the difficulties that typically arise for the two views.

Fictionalism about a kind of disputed object is often motivated by the fact that the view interprets discourse about those objects literally without an ontological commitment to them. This paper argues that this motivation is inadequate because some viable alternatives to fictionalism have similar attractions. Meinongianism—the view that there are true statements about non-existent objects—is one such view. Meinongianism bears significant similarity to fictionalism, so intuitive doubts about its viability are difficult to sustain for fictionalists. Moreover, Meinongianism avoids some of fictionalism’s weaknesses, thus it is even preferable to fictionalism in some respects.

This paper examines several intended topological features of the Region Connection Calculus (RCC) and argues that they are either underdetermined by the formal theory or given by the complement axiom. Conditions are identified under which the axioms of RCC are satisfied in topological models under various set restrictions. The results generalise previous results in the literature to non-strict topological models and across possible interpretations of connection. It is shown that the intended interpretation of connection and the alignment of self-connection with topological connection are underdetermined by the axioms of RCC, which suggests that additional axioms are necessary to secure these features. It is also argued that the complement axiom gives RCC models much of their topological structure. In particular, the incompatibility of RCC with interiors is argued to be given by the complement axiom.

This paper examines ten possible topological interpretations of connection and for each interpretation, identifies sufficient conditions under which a significant class of topological spaces provides models of General Extensional Mereotopology with Closure Conditions (GEMTC) in which some key mereotopological ideas align with their topological analogues. In particular, there is an interpretation under which the non-empty sets of any symmetric topology are a model of GEMTC with alignment between the mereotopological and topological definitions of (self-)connection, open and closed entities, interior, exterior, closure, and boundary.