7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

1/23

THE FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE EUROPEAN

NETWORK ON SOCIAL ONTOLOGY (ENSO IV)PALERMO, 24 26 | 9 | 2015

INSTITUTIONALONTOLOGYAS ANONTOLOGY OFTYPES

Lorenzo PASSE

Universit di M

lorenzo.passer

A Legisign is a law that is aSign []. Nor would the

Replica be significant if itwere not for the law whichrenders it so.

Charles Sanders PEIRCE

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

2/23

1. EIDOGRAPHIC PREDICATES VS. IDIOGRAPHIC PREDICATES

2. PROPERTIES BEING TRANSMITTED: AN ASYMMETRY BETWEENEIDOGRAPHIC ANDIDIOGRAPHIC PREDICATES

3. TWO FORMS OF ATYPICALITY: PRIVATIVE ATYPICALITY VS.NEGATIVE ATYPICALITY

4. EXTRINSIC EFFECTS OFNON-INSTITUTIONAL ACTS VS. INTRINSICEFFECTS OFINSTITUTIONAL ACTS

5. ANALOGICAL TYPES VS. KATALOGICAL TYPES

INSTITUTIONAL ONTOLOGY AS AN ONTOLOGY OF TYP

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

3/23

1.EIDOGRAPHIC PREDICATES

VS.

IDIOGRAPHIC PREDICATES

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

4/23

The faithful dog - why should I striveto speak his merits, while they live

in every breast, and man's best frienddoes often at his heels attend.

(The New-York Literary Journal, volume 4, 1821)

EIDOGRAPHIC1 PREDICATES

1. Dog is mans best friend.

3. In the game of rugby, a try isworth five points.

5. According to Italian law, in theabsence of a contrary stipulation,from marriage derives thecommunity of property between

the spouses.

IDIOGRAPHIC2 PREDICATE

2. His dog Gilbert is his best f

4. Goromarus try in South AJapan match on last Saturdaturned the tide of the game

6. Andrea and Francescasmarriage took place on a brisunny day, September 29th, 2

1 Cfr. Amedeo Giovanni CONTE (*12 Cfr. Wilhelm WINDELBAND (1848-19

1. Eidographic predicates vs. idiographic predicates

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

5/23

TYPE VS. TOKEN PARADIGM

In [a] sense of the word word, there is but one the in the English language; and it is impossible

word should lie visibly on a page or be heard in avoice, for the reason that it is not a Single thing or event. It does not exist; it only determines things thexist. Such a definitely significant Form, I propose ta Type.

(Ch. S. PEIRCE 1960, 4.537, vo

Charles SandersPEIRCE (1839-1914)

A single event which happens once and whose

is limited to that one happening or a Single objecthing which is in some single place at any one insttime, such event or thing being significant only asoccurring just when and where it does, such as thword on a single line of a single page of a single ca book, I will venture to call a Token.

(Ch. S. PEIRCE 1960, 4.537, vo

1. Eidographic predicates vs. idiographic predicates

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

6/23

WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTIC

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH WEPOSTULATE A TYPE?

A very important set of circumstances in whicwe postulate types [] is where we can correa class of particulars with a piece of humaninvention: these particulars may then be regaas tokens of a certain type.

(R. Wollheim,Art and Its Object, 1968

Class: e.g. the class of small objects.

Universal: e.g. smallness.

Type: e.g. the Union Jack.

Richard ArthurWOLLHEIM (1923-2003)

1. Eidographic predicates vs. idiographic predicates

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

7/23

2.PROPERTIES BEING TRANSMITTED:

AN ASYMMETRY BETWEEN EIDOGRAPH

AND IDIOGRAPHIC PREDICATES

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

8/23

TYPE (Battle-scarred) TO

2. Properties being transmitted: an asymmetry between eidographic and idiographic pre

(the only one surviving froTrafalgar battle,

sold for 384,000 in 2009

The type Union Jackcannot get battle-scarred

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

9/23

Eidographic predicates

3. In the game of rugby, a try isworth five points.

8*. In the game of rugby, a try turns

the tide of the game.

Idiographic predica

7. Goromarus try in SouJapan match on last Satworth five points.

4. Goromarus try in Sou

Japan match on last Satturned the tide of the ga

2. Properties being transmitted: an asymmetry between eidographic and idiographic pre

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

10/23

Eidographic predicates

5. According to Italian law, in theabsence of a contrary stipulation,from marriage derives thecommunity of property betweenthe spouses.

10*. According to Italian law,marriage takes place on a brightsunny day, September 29th, 2012.

Idiographic predica

9. From Andrea and Framarriage derived the coproperty between them

6. Andrea and Francesmarriage took place onsunny day, September 2

2. Properties being transmitted: an asymmetry between eidographic and idiographic pre

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

11/23

3.TWO FORMS OF ATYPICALITY:PRIVATIVE ATYPICALITY

VS.

NEGATIVE ATYPICALITY

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

12/23

Privative atypicality

(steretic,1 scalar atypicality)

Deviation from a given type,partial non-conformity with

reference to a type.

Negative atypic

(apophatic,1 binary aty

Typelessness, irreduciblenexisting type.

3. Two forms of atypicality: privative atypicality vs. negative atypicality

1 On strsis vs. apphasis, cfr. ARISTOTLE (3On Interpretation,Categories, Metaphys

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

13/23

Privative atypicality

The atypicality of a fake

(counterfeit) 20 banknote. The atypicality of a lease contract

in which something different frommoney is the consideration forlease.

Negative atypicality

The atypicality of a 30 bank

The atypicality of scoring a trfootball (soccer).

The atypicality of castling indraughts: There is no castlingdraughts (L. WITTGENSTEIN).

Privative atypicalitypresupposes the existence of areference type.

Negative atypicality isdetermined by the non-existence of a reference

3. Two forms of atypicality: privative atypicality vs. negative atypicality

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

14/23

NEGATIVE ATYPICALITY AND NORMATIVE IMPOSSIB

NEGATIVE ATYPICALITY

Ontological NORMATIVE IMPO

a normative impossibility whicoriginates (not from the preseimpeding norm, but) from theof specific rules constituting t

(Cfr. Amedeo G. CONTE and Paolo

3. Two forms of atypicality: privative atypicality vs. negative atypicality

All these acts could not exist (that is, it wouldnt be poperform them), if the norm constituting them didnt exisAs well as it is impossible to capture a pawn without tchess, it is impossible to donate a horse to anybody witnorms instituting legal property and the [type of] act ofdonation.

Cz. ZNACzesaw ZNAMIEROWSKI(1225-1274)

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

15/23

4.EXTRINSIC EFFECTS OF

NON-INSTITUTIONAL ACTSVS.

INSTRINSIC EFFECTS OFINSTITUTIONAL ACTS

4 E t i i ff t f i tit ti l t i t i i ff t f i tit ti l t

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

16/23

Extrinsic (causal) effectsof non-institutional acts

Cutting down a tree

Running

Intrinsic (non-causal)effects of institutiona

Marrying

Scoring a try

The tree falls down

The body changes relatively quickly itsposition in space

The community of property betwthe spouses is constituted

The scorers team earns five poin

Token-to-token cause-effect relationship, notdetermined by the type

Token-to-token cause-effect relationship, notdetermined by the type

Institutional relatimputation,1

determined by t

Institutional relatimputation,determined by t

1 Cfr. Hans KELSEN (1881-19

4. Extrinsic effects of non-institutional acts vs. intrinsic effects of institutional acts

4 E t i i ff t f i tit ti l t i t i i ff t f i tit ti l t

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

17/23

The type of an institutional act is the(necessary) CAUSA PRIMA of the effects oftokens; every token is a (contingent) CAU

SECUNDA of those effects: a CAUSA SECUNDAtriggers the effects determined by the

Effectus plus dependet a causa prima quamcausa secunda, quia secunda causa non agvirtute primae causae.

The effect depends more on the causa primon a causa secunda, since a causa secundaonly in virtue of the causa prima.

(Thomas AQUINAS, Summa theologiae, Ia-IIa, q.

4. Extrinsic effects of non-institutional acts vs. intrinsic effects of institutional acts

THOMAS AQUINAS(1225-1274)

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

18/23

5.ANALOGICAL TYPES

VS.KATALOGICAL TYPES

5 Analogical types vs katalogical types

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

19/23

ANALOGICAL TYPES

AnANALOGICAL TYPE is obtained peranalogiam and abstraction from theits tokens.

Properties are transmitted in anUPWARD DIRECTION (an-basis), from thetokens to the type: the type MIRRORSthe properties of its tokens.

The tokens are the PRIUS, the type isthe POSTERIUS.

Prevailing COGNITIVE function, andEPISTEMOLOGICAL import.

KATALOGICAL1 TYPES

A token is obtained per katalo(instantiation) from its KATALOGIC

Properties are transmitted in aDOWNWARD DIRECTION (kata-basithe type to the tokens: the typDETERMINES the properties of its t

The type is the PRIUS, the tokensthe POSTERIUS.

Prevailing NORMATIVE function, aONTOLOGICAL import.

5.Analogical types vs. katalogical types

1 Cfr. Alexander GERKEN; Hans Urs VON(1905-1988)

5 Analogical types vs katalogical types

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

20/23

ANALOGICAL TYPES

TYPE-TO-TOKENS DIRECTION OF FIT:1

an analogical type has to fit its

tokens in order to be cognitivelycorrect.

COGNITIVE EXPECTATIONS:2

in case of non-correspondencebetween the type and its tokens, it isthe type that has to be revised.

KATALOGICAL TYPES

TOKENS-TO-TYPE DIRECTION OF FIT:1

a token has to fit its katalogic

in order to exist (to be ontolocorrect) and to produce its e

NORMATIVE EXPECTATIONS:2

in case of non-correspondenbetween the type and a tokethe token that has to be revis

5.Analogical types vs. katalogical types

2 Cfr. Johan GALTUNG (*1930)1 Cfr. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274); G.E.M.ANSCOMBE (1919-2001); John R. SEARLE

(*1932)

5 Analogical types vs katalogical types

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

21/23

Veritas consistit in adaequationeintellectus et rei []. Intellectus autemqui est causa rei, comparatur ad ipsamsicut regula et mensura, e converso

autem est de intellectu qui accipitscientiam a rebus.

Quando igitur RES SUNT MENSURA ET REGULAINTELLECTUS, veritas consistit in hoc, quodintellectus adaequatur rei, ut in nobisaccidit, ex eo enim quod res est vel nonest, opinio nostra et oratio vera vel falsaest.

Sed quando INTELLECTUS EST REGULA VELMENSURA RERUM, veritas consistit in hoc,quod res adaequantur intellectui, sicutdicitur artifex facere verum opus,quando concordat arti.

Truth consists in a correspondbetween the intellect and reaan intellect that is a cause of trelevant real thing is related torule and measure, whereas theconverse holds in the case of a

intellect that takes its scientificknowledge from the things.

Thus, when, as happens with uthings are the measure and ruintellect, then truth consists in tintellects corresponding to theFor it is because reality is or is nand-such that our opinions andstatements are true or false.

By contrast, when the intellector measure of the things, then consists in the things correspothe intellect. So, for instance, tcraftsman is said to produce awhen that work agrees with his

(THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa theologiae, Ia-IIae, q. 19, a

5.Analogical types vs. katalogical types

5 Analogical types vs katalogical types

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

22/23

ANALOGICAL TYPES

The truth-canon (criterion of truth)

for eidographic predicates referringto analogical types is nottype: it isthe tokens

KATALOGICAL TYPES

The truth-canon for eidogra

predicates referring to kataltypes is the type itself

5.Analogical types vs. katalogical types

NATURAL ONTOLOGY AS ANONTOLOGY OFTOKENS

INSTITUTIONAL ONTOLOGYAN ONTOLOGY OFTYPES

7/25/2019 Institutional Ontology as an Ontology of Types

23/23

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

lorenzo.passerini@unimib.it