Abstract

Ontological pluralism is the view that there are ways of being. In this paper, we build a new case for ontological pluralism in the form of three contributions: (1) We offer a theoretically useful definition of ‘way of being’ as a positive principle of similarity and difference that is distinct from—and a prior condition for—having properties. (2) We develop a test for distinguishing ways of being from properties: features of entities that are conceptually redundant when represented as predicates in standard predicate logic are ways of being. Finally, (3) we argue that there are ways of being, i.e., there are features of entities that satisfy the definition in (1), and pass the test outlined in (2). Along the way, we reply to objections against pluralism raised by Peter van Inwagen and Wouter Cohen, in an attempt to show that pluralism is well-motivated.