There was a NYTimes article a few years back where Colin McGinn proposed "Ontics" as a more precise name for the field of philosophy.


Wondering if this was part of an actual movement or if this went anywhere?

  • 1
    Considering that McGinn's ideas about "scientific" nature of philosophy and its lack of concern with human culture would exclude most of what philosophy is generally seen to include I am not sure that even McGinn was taking his own proposal seriously (publishing it in NYT is another sign of that). See “Ontics” vs. Philosophy and Re-branding Philosophy? responses.
    – Conifold
    Mar 10 '17 at 23:12


It's hard to give evidence for a total lack but of existence because there's nowhere to point, but, like, google it. There's nothing. Ontic is already a word with a distinct meaning, and the Campaign for Renaming Philosophy turns up only four relevant results.

And I think the article was really just supposed to be taken as a tongue-in-cheek complaint of being lumped together with ethicists, aestheticians, and similar.

  • Also, the article is written by McGinn after all, so you'd think he'd be all for a little "mystery" about philosophy - but I suppose he wants ontics to be a "new" mystery...
    – MmmHmm
    Mar 9 '17 at 4:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.