I'm not sure there's a better word; it's just that ontologicality isn't something very flexible. Either something exists, or it doesn't. You can believe that something exists, believe that something doesn't exist, believe there's no evidence to decide, or, roughly, refuse to consider the issue. (I'm sure there are other gradiations of belief.) I just don't think said refusal is an ontological stance so much as a refusal to consider ontology.
This may seem to be kind of quibbling, but this kind of game with what ontology is is essential to, say, Anselm's Ontological Proof of the Existence of God, which, man, as I look it up, this one page claims "has fascinated philosophers, and even today there are respectable philosophers who accept it". But of course, this paragraph, you don't care about, because you are an apatheist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
syntheid
no subject
Date: 2005-01-21 06:09 pm (UTC)This may seem to be kind of quibbling, but this kind of game with what ontology is is essential to, say, Anselm's Ontological Proof of the Existence of God, which, man, as I look it up, this one page claims "has fascinated philosophers, and even today there are respectable philosophers who accept it". But of course, this paragraph, you don't care about, because you are an apatheist.