Holes (1996-2025)
This Stanford Encyclopedia entry explores the ontology and epistemology of holes, examining whether they are real immaterial entities or merely linguistic conveniences.
summary is enough The entry provides a comprehensive catalog of philosophical positions on holes, but the core debate between realism and eliminativism is easily summarized.
summary
The entry examines whether holes are bona fide immaterial particulars, regions of spacetime, or linguistic conveniences. It outlines key ontological challenges regarding holes, including how we perceive them causally, establish their identity, and handle their mereology. Various philosophical theories are surveyed, ranging from eliminativism to realism. Ultimately, the debate highlights how common-sense ontology clashes with rigorous metaphysical analysis.
key points
- Holes present severe ontological puzzles because they appear to be immaterial particulars that lack substance yet possess shape, size, and causal relevance.
- Eliminativist theories argue that holes do not exist, proposing that statements about holes can be systematically paraphrased into statements about holed objects.
- Realist alternatives treat holes variously as spacetime regions, negative parts of material hosts, disturbances, or relational properties.
who should read it
Metaphysicians and philosophers interested in formal ontology and the status of absences.
discussion positive
consensus
Commenters marvel at the philosophical absurdity and depth of the topic, sharing amusement over taking such an everyday concept so seriously.
> Some languages even discriminate different types of hole, distinguishing e.g. between superficial hollows, inner cavities, and see-through perforations.
This blew me away when learning Portuguese. You have to use different words depending on the kind of hole: for a hole in the ground or in your tooth, it's buraco, and for hole to pass a shoelace, it's furo. A hole that is closed at one end is different than one that's pass-through. I never thought about the distinction before learning another language. "Hole" is more general a word than exists in Portuguese.
Similarly, the word "bump" in …
It highlights how natural languages like Portuguese make granular semantic distinctions between types of holes and bumps that English generalizes.
Generated by an LLM from the article and thread. Check the sources before relying on it.