This new project addresses deflationism in ontology and metaontology. Deflationist positions, in general, reject that disputes about a given issue have any substantive significance. Metaontological deflationism rejects that metaphysical disputes about the existence and nature of entities of any kind are substantial. Ontological deflationism claims the same about the notions of existence and object.
- We will try to determine the relations between three different sorts of deflationism, the two mentioned above and semantic deflationism. Thomasson (2014) claims that ontological deflationism implies (logically) or, at least, entails (analytically) metaontological deflationism; that the three form a coherent pack; that the semantic implies the ontological, and the ontological the metaontological. We will be arguing that metaontological deflationism does not necessarily imply semantic deflationism, although it probably does presuppose deflationism with respect to the notion of existence; contrary to what Thomasson seems to assume, ontological deflationism does not imply metaontological deflationism (cf. Marschall and Schindler 2020).
- We will contend that metaontological deflationism is compatible with Carnapian pragmatism for external questions, and allows for granting extracognitive value to traditional metaphysical disputes, without turning these into mere verbal disputes.
- We will also discuss deflationist proposals-or close to it- (Hirsch, Rayo, Linnebo, Balaguer, Bueno, Thomasson, Hofweber, Azzouni, etc.) to put forward the differences between them; to determine to what extent they can be considered as neo-Carnapian; to see whether any of them combines with certain naturalistic attitude. We will advocate that there are substantial differences between the views considered; that not all of them can be strictly called neo-Carnapian; and that at least some of these deflationary proposals in ontology/metaontology are likely to be combined with a naturalistic posture.
- We will try to identify a series of features that allow us to characterize ontological deflationism, in the line to what Armour-Garb has done in relation to semantic deflationism. One major issue will be to see what counts as a deflationary understanding of the relation between existence and the quantifiers. Both neo-Carnapian and neo-Quinean views, seem to agree on the Quinean dictum. Now, since new- Quineans are not deflationists about existence, while neo-Carnapians are, accepting the dictum seems not to decide. It might be the case that its acceptance is one of the features of deflationism about existence. However, there are metaontological proposals that are deflationary that reject Quines dictum. Accepting the dictum conveys accepting a traditional reading of the existential quantifier. But the relation between the existential quantifier and existence is far from clear.
- We will be assessing Cumpa and Bueno's neutralism, Zaltas neo-Meinongianism, or Azzouni's deflationary metaphysics. These proposals separate the existential quantifier and existential commitment and advocate a neutral reading of quantifiers. Bueno & Cumpa (2020) argue that neutralism leads us to adopt a more appropriate and defensible metaontological conception than Thomasson's easy- ontology and metaontological deflationism. We will also be analyzing the interplay between existence, quantifiers and modal operators and the associated notion of merely possible object (Williamson 2013).
Semantic deflationism has been a hotly debated issue. In this project, we address deflationist views in ontology and metaontology to systematize, characterize and study the relations between them. We also aim to assess and compare them to classical ontological and metaontological views.
Success in such an endeavor should result in a better understanding of what these views contend, how they relate to each other and formulate new proposals that surmount the problems they address. The direct impact of the investigation proposed should be felt in the field of analytical philosophy. We believe it will be so since: a) the methodology used is the one that is characteristic of this philosophical approach; b) the topic has proved to be of great relevance for that area of inquiry; c) the topic addressed in the project has raised a lot of interest on the side of some renowned philosophers, prestigious journals, scientific editors and publishing houses.
Publication of one edited volume, one book (to help to start research in these issues), 2 or 3 book chapters, around 9 papers, and probably in English) in different International journals or in Spanish Journals (all of them with Blind refereeing and indexed in some national (Dursi, CSIC, etc.) or international databases (Philosophers Index, Index for the Humanities, Scopus, ERIH, etc.)).
Contributed papers or talks in national and international symposia or workshops: in particular, we will participate in the conferences organized by national societies SEFA and SOLOFICI, and international societies (ESAP, DLMPST, etc.).
One workshop related to the objectives of the Project per year. The members of the working team (Azzano, Bueno, Eklund, Leng, Linnebo and Rayo have committed to participate). We plan to devote one to each of our general objectives: Metaontological Deflationism, Ontological Deflationism and Deflationism in relation to specific matters.
Stays abroad: our doctoral students will carry out stays abroad as an essential part of their training.
Web page for the project in which our activities and results will be publicized. The web page will include results coming both from the research team and the working team.
Courses for doctorate students: we plan on organizing one doctorate activity per year.
All this should also strengthen our group's relationships with top-level international researchers.