The final chapter of my dissertation will require me to briefly sketch out an ontology. Naturally, I’m worried that it will not be robust enough, and I will be subjected to the ridicule of my Radical Orthodox peers. (Speaking of which, is there any way we could start a movement whose name incorporates “tubular,” “cowabunga,” or both?)
The first step in achieving robustitosity is of course knowing what “robust” means in connection with ontology. Sadly, I have looked up “robustness” on Wikipedia and do not find a ready-made answer. Surely there are Radical Orthodox people — perhaps among the large youth contingent belonging to that movement, tendency, sensibility, or whatever it is — who feel comfortable editing Wikipedia, but I suspect that this omission is actually intentional: it forces me to reason by analogy.
I’m not yet participating in the truth of robustitude, however, and I need my readers’ help. What is meant by a robust ontology? How does one go about articulating an ontology that displays a suitable level of robustitude? In what specific ways is, for example, the Radical Orthodox ontology of Christianized Neoplatonism robust? Why do other ontologies fail to meet that high standard? For instance, what is non-robust about Deleuze’s ontology?