Of late, I have had to question the definition of ontology given to me.

The standard defines usually the study of what exists? Admittedly, this definition does not claim of what exists. It is an open statement. But giving such a definition there must be said something that does not exist as well.

These days abstract entities are said to exist dependently, while physical objects exist independently. But if that is the case, there is nothing that can be said to not exist. For physical objects and abstract entities make up the complete set of all there is.

The independent/dependent division of existing things is a broadening of the term “existence”, something I suspect that realists about universals had done to make room for the universals. If the ing independent thing exists did not exist the dependent thing would not (by definition) exist either.

Can it be said to exist dependently then.

The better division of exist/not exist is cleaner, and more useful then.

Why should one be afraid to say “x does not exist”?