Ontology Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! === Anthropology === The topic of ontology has received increased attention in [[anthropology]] since the 1990s. This is sometimes termed the "[[ontological turn]]".<ref name="Scott2013">{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Michael W. |title=The anthropology of ontology (religious science?) |date=2013 |issue=4 |journal=The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute |volume=19 |pages=859β872 |doi=10.1111/1467-9655.12067 |jstor=42001687 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001687 |quote=Since roughly the 1990s, a growing number of anthropologists have become interested in the study of ontology β the investigation and theorization of diverse experiences and understandings of the nature of being itself. This generally takes the form of ethnographic accounts of indigenous non-Western modes and models of being, presented in more or less explicit contrast with aspects of a Euro-American or modern ontology imputed to conventional anthropology.}}</ref> This type of inquiry is focused on how people from different cultures experience and understand the nature of being. Specific interest in this regard has been given to the ontological outlook of [[indigenous people]] and how their outlook tends to differ from a more Western perspective.<ref name="Scott2013"/><ref name="Heywood2012">{{cite journal |last=Heywood |first=Paolo |title=Anthropology and What There Is: Reflections on 'Ontology' |journal=The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology |date=2012 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=143β151 |doi=10.3167/ca.2012.300112 |jstor=43610895 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43610895 |issn=0305-7674}}</ref> As an example of this contrast, it has been argued that various indigenous communities ascribe [[intentionality]] to non-human entities, like plants, forests, or rivers. This outlook is known as [[animism]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ludwig |first1=David |last2=Weiskopf |first2=Daniel A. |title=Ethnoontology: Ways of world-building across cultures |journal=Philosophy Compass |date=September 2019 |volume=14 |issue=9 |doi=10.1111/phc3.12621 |s2cid=199516840 |quote= Consider the animism debate. Animists consider nonhuman entities (e.g., plants, forests, or rivers) as intentional actors (Harvey, 2005). There is substantial evidence that animism is a widespread metaphysical view. For example, the Nayaka people of South India consider not only certain animals but also stones, hills, cups, and knives to be devaru: beings that stand in active, quasi-social relationships with them (Bird-David, 1999). Devaru are aspects of a larger kin structure that incorporates potential "partners" in the nonhuman world. In addition to these ethnographic observations, there are intriguing cross-cultural similarities in animist ontologies. Indigenous communities around the world tend to be much more permissive in their ascription of intentionality than Western participants (Ojalehto, Douglas, & GarcΓa, 2017).|doi-access=free }}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page