The Deflationary Metaontology of Thomasson’s Ordinary Objects

“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things: Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax— Of cabbages—and kings— And why the sea is boiling hot— And whether pigs have wings.” (Lewis Carroll, The Walrus and the Carpenter) In Ordinary Objects, Thomasson pursues an integrated conception of ontology and metaontology. In ontology, she defends the existence of shoes, ships, and other ordinary objects. In metaontology, she defends a deflationary view of ontological inquiry, designed to suck the air out of arguments against ordinary objects. The result is an elegant and insightful defense of a common sense worldview. I am sympathetic—in spirit if not always in letter—with Thomasson’s ontology. But I am skeptical of her deflationary metaontology. Indeed, I think that her metaontology and her ontology are in tension. Her metaontology dismisses certain ontological questions as unanswerable, but her ontology in fact answers these very questions. For example, Thomasson dismisses the special composition question on its intended interpretation as “unanswerable” (p. 136), but she goes on to defend the standard answer of the universalist (p. 184). Thus, my primary argument will be that Thomasson should reject deflationary metaontology, by her own lights. Thomasson’s main line of argument—as I understand it—runs as follows. First, she argues from the need for sortals in reference determination to the existence of analytic entailments for referring terms. In particular, she argues that it is analytic that if there are particles arranged cupwise, then there is a cup. Second, she argues from the existence of analytic entailments for referring terms to the existence of ordinary objects. Since all sides agree that there are particles arranged cupwise, all sides are committed to cups. Third, she argues from the existence of analytic entailments for referring terms to the unanswerability of certain ontological questions. This deflationary metaontology is then used to further buttress the claim that ordinary objects exist. See Figure 1 for a flowchart. There are certainly other positions defended in Ordinary Objects, and other connections between the four positions diagrammed. Indeed Thomasson may well regard the four positions diagrammed as all being interconnected. But this flowchart will set my agenda.