A conflict between van Inwagen’s metaontology and his ontology


Peter van Inwagen has in recent decades made significant and influential contributions to metaphysics. In his Material Beings he advanced a novel ontology according to which chairs and other medium-sized dry goods don’t really exist. He went on to make important contributions to metaontology. Parts of his Ontology, Identity, and Modality and Existence: Essays in Ontology defend a broadly Quinean conception of existence questions and how to address them. I argue that the metaontology articulated in those later works is in fact inconsistent with his defense of his ontology advanced in his earlier work.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    See Korman (2016b) for references and discussion.

  2. 2.

    For the sake of simplicity, I use ‘macroscopic objects’ as short for relatively compact, nonliving mesoscopic entities like tables, gazebos and particle accelerators. I’ll just write eliminativism for short since there’s only one eliminativism at issue.

  3. 3.

    van Inwagen (1990, p. 103, 2014c, p. 9).

  4. 4.

    I let the difference in font do the work of quotation marks.

  5. 5.

    This distinction is drawn from Burgess (1983)’s discussion of eliminativism about mathematicalia like numbers and sets.

  6. 6.

    Yablo (2001), Rosen and Cian (2002), Yablo (2017) and Eklund (2005) outline different kinds of pluralist strategy. I know of nowhere van Inwagen discusses fictionalism (the first two) or “if-thenism” (the third), but van Inwagen (2014c, p. 8) does explicitly disavow any loose talk approach, the kind of approach defended in Eklund (2005). I discuss pluralism at greater length in Fisher (unpublished).

  7. 7.

    van Inwagen explicitly addresses some of these issues in van Inwagen (2014b, pp. 31–49). See also Korman (2016a), Liggins (2008) and O’Leary-Hawthorne and Michael (1996) for additional arguments.

  8. 8.

    Quine (1960, 1948) are loci classici for the method of paraphrase. I argue in Sect. 6.2 that van Inwagen’s notion of paraphrase can’t exactly be Quine’s.

  9. 9.

    I take as evidence for this claim the diversity of interpretations that have been given of what van Inwagen’s account of paraphrase is. Nolan (2010), von Solodkoff (2014), Mackie (1993), Eklund (2005) and Varzi (2002) each provide different interpretations.

  10. 10.

    van Inwagen (1993, p. 711) should be enough to show that the recent essay is a genuine clarification and not an amendment.

  11. 11.

    van Inwagen (2014c, fn. 10) notes that the “ordinary business of life,” hence “outside,” is really many contexts. But since what is important is the contrast between the two kinds of context, as long as inside the Ontology Room is one kind, and is distinct from any ordinary context, which surely it is, it won’t hurt to treat Inside and Outside as generic names for the contexts.

  12. 12.

    \(\langle S \rangle \)’ is shorthand for ‘the proposition expressed by S’.

  13. 13.

    Cf. van Inwagen (2014c, p. 3ff)., especially fn. 10].

  14. 14.

    I’ll tend to drop the “obvious” part in what follows but only to simplify the presentation.

  15. 15.

    (van Inwagen 2014c, p. 7) See Sect. 6 below for more discussion. Let me add that it is not assumed that every English sentence has a Tarksian translation. But it is a consequence of the Tarskian Presumption that anyone who utters an English sentence in the Ontology Room which lacks a Tarskian translation commits a solecism (van Inwagen 2014c, fn. 6).

  16. 16.

    The same idea is also presented in his more recent (van Inwagen 2014a, p. 77). That passage isn’t as nicely sequential but it makes clear that each inference is supposed to go both directions, and that each step is licensed by the abbreviatory conventions.

  17. 17.

    This is called ‘conditional introduction’ in natural deduction systems of logic.

  18. 18.

    As an anonymous referee points out, the two propositions being identical is far stronger than I need to derive my thesis, (\(*\)). It would suffice if \(\langle {\mathsf {\exists C}}_{\textsc {out}} \rangle \) only materially implied \(\langle {\mathsf {\exists C}}_{\textsc {in}} \rangle \).

  19. 19.

    Recall, we have set aside hermeneutic strategies that treat either constituent expression as being used ambiguously.

  20. 20.

    That is, apart from adding in some new parameter in addition to context of utterance. That, however, wouldn’t be his view but an amendment. I’m not arguing against the possibility of amendments. Thanks to Hao Hong for helpful discussion here.

  21. 21.

    This was the \({\mathbf {a}}\) option in the diagram.

  22. 22.

    van Inwagen (1998, p. 24, 2014c, fn. 8) emphasizes this. See also van Inwagen (1993b) and van Inwagen (2014a).

  23. 23.

    van Inwagen (1993b, p. 356).

  24. 24.

    van Inwagen (1979) is van Inwagen’s own regimentation strategy.

  25. 25.

    These authors also tend to be a bit slippery on these issues. Stich (1975) is relatively explicit in evincing the attitude I have in mind.


  1. Burgess, J. (1983). Why I am not a nominalist. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 24, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Eklund, M. (2005). Fiction, indifference, and ontology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71, 557–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fine, K. (2001). The question of realism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher, D. (unpublished). Loosen up! Logical tools for metaontology. Dissertation for Indiana University.

  5. Korman, D. Z. (2016a). Objects: Nothing out of the ordinary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Korman, D. Z. (2016b). Ordinary objects. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Liggins, D. (2008). Nihilism without self-contradiction. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 42, 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mackie, P. (1993). Ordinary language and metaphysical commitment. Analysis, 53, 243–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria, 36, 373–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nolan, D. (2010). Metaphysical language, ordinary language and Peter van Inwagen’s material beings. Humanamente, 13, 220–226.

    Google Scholar 

  11. O’Leary-Hawthorne, J., & Michael, M. (1996). Compatibilist semantics in metaphysics: A case study. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Quine, W. V. (1948). On what there is. Review of Metaphysics, 5, 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Quine, W. V. (1986). Philosophy of Logic (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rosen, G., & Cian, D. (2002). Composition as fiction. In R. Gale (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to metaphysics (pp. 151–174). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stich, S. P. (1975). Logical form and natural language. Philosophical Studies, 28, 397–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van Inwagen, P. (1979). Creatures of fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly, 14, 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  18. van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. van Inwagen, P. (1993a). Reply to reviewers. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 3, 709–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. van Inwagen, P. (1993b). Searle on ontological commitment. In E. Lepore & R. van Gulick (Eds.), John Searle and his critics (pp. 345–358). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  21. van Inwagen, P. (1998). Meta-ontology. Erkenntnis, 2(3), 233–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Inwagen, P. (2014a). Being, existence, and ontological commitment. In Existence: Essays in ontology (pp. 50–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107111004.005.

  23. van Inwagen, P. (2014b). Existence: essays in ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Inwagen, P. (2014c). Introduction: Inside and outside the ontology room. In Existence: Essays in ontology (pp. 1–14). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  25. Varzi, A. C. (2002). Words and objects. In M. Carrara, A. Bottani, & D. Giaretta (Eds.), Individuals, essence, and identity. Themes of analytic metaphysics (pp. 49–75). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  26. von Solodkoff, T. (2014). Paraphrase strategies in metaphysics. Philosophy Compass, 9, 570–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yablo, S. (2001). Go figure: A path through fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 72–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yablo, S. (2017). If-Thenism. Australasian Philosophical Review, 1(2), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Thanks to Hao Hong, Matt Carlson, Liz Jackson, David Charles McCarty, Nick Montgomery, Bradley Rettler, Harrison Waldo, audiences at meetings of the Central States Philosophy Association and the Indiana Philosophical Association, and to two anonymous referees. Special thanks to Gary Ebbs, Kirk Ludwig, Tim O’Connor, and Tim Perrine, whose input on multiple occasions was pivotal to the development of these ideas.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Fisher.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisher, D. A conflict between van Inwagen’s metaontology and his ontology. Synthese 198, 707–722 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02055-y

Download citation


  • van Inwagen
  • Metaphysics
  • Ontology
  • Metaontology
  • Eliminativism