Sincere Doubt: Metamodernism, Insights from ChatGPT.

I was looking through old chatlogs of ChatGPT, trying to create a second memory, while failing miserably, and I came across a discussion on different ontological perspectives. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics in philosophy, but it also crosses over and overlaps with other domains, such as my own area in the social sciences. It was an old conversation where I think I was trying to understand some passages I was reading on ontology and using ChatGPT to simplify them.

The answers ChatGPT outputs in 2025 compared to when I was using it back in late 2022, 2023, and 2024 have vastly improved. It’s incredible, to say the least. I remember when there were no search options, no ability to upload files, and no memory! ChatGPT would often struggle to understand precisely what I was saying or meant, hallucinate, and give very plain answers. Now, it has advanced tremendously, with nuance and sophisticated answers. The caveat is that I use a custom instruction for better outputs. Not to mention, custom GPTs can become more promising in the future, as I have experimented with some of mine with satisfactory and surprising results.

The word metamodernism seems fitting in the Age of AI, especially because it’s almost like “meta” is AI’s favorite word. It certainly appears to be since our conversation does take a meta-turn or comes up in unexpected ways.

---

Discussion with ChatGPT4o.

// I copied and pasted an old conversation that I believe was from 2023.

Me: Summarize this previous conversation: [Simplify Request, Layman Explanation

user
Can you help me simplify some passages for me in layman. I want to better understand it.

ChatGPT
Of course! Please provide the passages you’d like simplified, and I’ll do my best to explain them in a more accessible, layman-friendly language.

user
“The term ontology draws its traditional meaning from the philosophical discussions of metaphysics pertaining to the nature of being . This concept can be simplified into “questions about the nature of reality” (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994, p.3) when in reference to social sciences methodologies such as qualitative inquiry.

In the traditional philosophical discussions (Plato and Aristotle) regarding ontology, the nature of being is concerned with what truly exists. Here any physical object takes on this basic tenant, for it has form and therefore exists to be perceived. However, this definition, which held true for centuries, evolved during the Enlightenment with the idea postulated by Rene Descartes of “I think therefore I am”. This is an important point to take note of, for it introduces the idea of the mind being able to perceive without any physical connection to an object. These perceptions then take on the primary importance in any questions pertaining to ontology, for they create systems and hierarchies of the way the world works, or rather, how the world around an individual exists.

In the social sciences, thanks to the work of individuals such as Edmund Husserl (termed the ‘father’ of phenomenology) and his student Martin Heidegger, the notion of multiple subjectivities was introduced in the early 20 th century. This idea argued that the world could be seen (constructed) in several different ways, which was dependant upon ones notion of reality (truth or fact). These ontological approaches of knowing, perceiving and interpreting the world are generally lumped into four distinct categories: realism, empiricism, positivism and post-modernism. “

ChatGPT
Sure, let’s break down this passage into simpler terms:

1. Ontology in Philosophy: The term ‘ontology’ originally comes from philosophy and deals with the nature of being, or simply put, “questions about the nature of reality.” This concept is often used in social sciences, especially in qualitative research methods.
2. Early Philosophical Views (Plato and Aristotle): In traditional philosophy, as discussed by thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, ontology is about what really exists. For them, anything physical, which has a form and can be perceived, exists.
3. Evolution of the Concept During the Enlightenment: During the Enlightenment, this idea evolved. René Descartes introduced the concept “I think therefore I am,” suggesting that the mind’s ability to think and perceive is proof of existence, even without a physical object to perceive. This shifted the focus to mental perceptions and their role in understanding reality.
4. Social Sciences Perspective: In social sciences, influenced by Edmund Husserl (known as the ‘father of phenomenology’) and his student Martin Heidegger, the idea of multiple subjectivities emerged in the early 20th century. This means that reality can be seen or constructed in different ways depending on an individual’s perception of truth or facts.
5. Four Categories in Ontological Approaches: In understanding and interpreting the world, there are generally four main ontological approaches in the social sciences: realism, empiricism, positivism, and post-modernism. Each of these represents a different way of understanding and perceiving the world.

In summary, ontology deals with the nature of reality and existence. It started with a focus on physical objects in traditional philosophy but evolved to include the importance of mental perception. In social sciences, this concept allows for the understanding that there are multiple ways to perceive and interpret the world.

user
“Realism concerns itself with the notion that there are universal truths and facts which can be discovered through active exploration. These facts are independent of the context in which they are found, so the systems and hierarchies they enable are essentially static. “

ChatGPT
This passage is about the concept of “realism” in the context of ontology and social sciences:

Realism: This approach believes in the existence of universal truths and facts. According to realism, these truths and facts exist independently and can be found through exploration or investigation. These facts are not influenced by the context or situation they are found in. This means that the truths discovered through realism are considered unchanging and constant.

In simpler terms, realism is the idea that certain truths and facts exist no matter what, and these truths remain the same regardless of where or how they are found. These facts create fixed systems and hierarchies in our understanding of the world.

user
Can you give me an example of this idea.

ChatGPT
Certainly! Let’s consider the law of gravity as an example to illustrate the idea of realism:

The Law of Gravity: According to the law of gravity, any two objects in the universe attract each other with a force that is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. This law, first formulated by Sir Isaac Newton, is a classic example of a universal truth in the realm of physics.

How This Relates to Realism: In the context of realism, the law of gravity is a perfect example of a universal truth or fact. It states that gravity is a constant force that acts in the same way, regardless of the context or situation. Whether you’re dropping a pen in a room, or observing the orbit of planets around the sun, the law of gravity applies. It does not change based on location, time, or any other variable. This consistency and independence from context are key aspects of realism.

So, in a realistic view, the law of gravity is seen as an objective truth about the world that exists independently of human thoughts, beliefs, or perceptions, and can be discovered through scientific exploration and study.

user
“Empiricism rejects the notion of universal truths and facts that simply exist, but rather postulates that facts can only become clear by a careful observation and evaluation of the world around us . This idea presupposes that the world around us is real, what we know; and therefore takes no account for the notion of perceptions of or interpretations of reality. “

ChatGPT
The passage discusses “empiricism,” a concept in ontology and philosophy:

Empiricism: This approach challenges the idea of universal truths and facts that exist independently. Instead, empiricism argues that facts and truths can only be understood through careful observation and evaluation of the world. It’s about learning from direct experience and evidence.

Key Points:

1. No Pre-existing Universal Truths: Empiricism rejects the idea that there are truths or facts that just exist on their own.
2. Observation and Evaluation: It emphasizes that we come to know facts by observing and analyzing the world around us.
3. Focus on the Real World: Empiricism assumes that the world around us is real and that our knowledge comes from this reality.
4. Not About Perceptions or Interpretations: Unlike some other philosophical approaches, empiricism does not focus on individual perceptions or interpretations of reality. It’s more about what can be directly observed and proven in the physical world.

In simpler terms, empiricism is like saying, “I won’t believe it until I see it or prove it through experience or experiment.” It’s about gathering knowledge through direct experience and tangible evidence, rather than relying on pre-existing ideas or theories.

user
“Positivism takes the ideas of empiricism one step further, by rejecting the notion of clear facts to be found, and rather concerns itself almost entirely with what can be observed and therefore codified. It is through an analysis of these codified observations that some explanation (not necessarily a fact) can be offered. This idea is premised on the notion that which is real can be observed. “

ChatGPT
The passage describes “positivism,” a philosophical stance that extends the ideas of empiricism:

Positivism: This approach takes empiricism’s focus on observation and goes a step further. Positivism doesn’t just doubt the existence of clear, pre-existing facts; it focuses almost exclusively on what can be directly observed and measured. The key aspect of positivism is the belief that only things that can be observed and quantified are real and worth studying.

Key Elements:

1. Focus on Observable Phenomena: Positivism prioritizes things that can be seen, measured, and quantified. If something can’t be observed in this way, it’s not considered valid for study or understanding in positivism.
2. Analysis of Codified Observations: In positivism, observations are systematically recorded and analyzed. This analysis aims to provide explanations, but these explanations are not necessarily considered absolute facts.
3. Reality Defined by Observation: The foundation of positivism is the belief that reality is what can be observed. Anything that cannot be empirically observed is not considered part of reality in this perspective.

In simpler terms, positivism is like saying, “If it can’t be observed, measured, or quantified, it’s not real.” It’s a strict, scientific approach to understanding the world, focusing on concrete evidence and observable data, and less on abstract ideas or theories.

user
Can you give an example of positivism?

ChatGPT
Certainly! A good example to illustrate positivism is the scientific method as used in experimental research:

The Scientific Method in Experimental Research: When scientists conduct experiments, they follow a structured approach known as the scientific method. This method involves making observations, forming a hypothesis, conducting experiments to test the hypothesis, and then analyzing the results to draw conclusions.

How This Relates to Positivism:

1. Focus on Observable Phenomena: In experimental research, scientists focus on phenomena that can be observed, measured, and manipulated. For instance, a biologist studying plant growth under different light conditions will precisely measure light intensity, plant height, and growth rate – all observable and quantifiable factors.
2. Systematic Observation and Measurement: The scientific method relies on careful observation and measurement. This is a core principle of positivism – that knowledge comes from what we can empirically observe and measure.
3. Seeking Explanations Through Analysis: After gathering data through experiments, scientists analyze the results to understand the relationships between variables. In positivism, the emphasis is on explanations derived from this kind of empirical analysis, rather than on finding absolute truths.

In this way, the scientific method embodies positivist principles: it’s grounded in observable, measurable phenomena and seeks to understand reality through systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis. This approach reflects the positivist belief that what is real and knowable is what can be observed and measured.

user
“Post-modernism concerns itself with the very subjectivities first posited by Husserl (and Heidegger), in that facts are not rigid but rather shift according to an individual’s interpretation of the world around them. Therefore there is a need for a greater understanding of the systems and hierarchies’ individuals have established to understand the world. “

ChatGPT
The passage explains “post-modernism,” a perspective in philosophy and social sciences:

Post-modernism: This approach deals with the idea of subjectivity in understanding the world, similar to the ideas introduced by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. It emphasizes that what we consider as facts are not fixed and unchanging, but instead, they can vary based on individual interpretations.

Key Aspects:

1. Subjectivity and Interpretation: Post-modernism highlights that people interpret the world around them in different ways. These interpretations are influenced by individual experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives.
2. Fluidity of Facts: Unlike other approaches that consider facts as fixed and universal, post-modernism sees facts as flexible and subject to change based on how individuals perceive and understand them.
3. Understanding Individual Perspectives: Post-modernism suggests a need to deeply understand the systems and hierarchies that individuals use to make sense of the world. This means recognizing that different people may have different viewpoints and ways of understanding reality.

In simpler terms, post-modernism is like saying, “What’s true or real can vary from person to person.” It recognizes that each person may see and understand the world differently, and these diverse perspectives shape their version of reality. This approach values individual experiences and interpretations, acknowledging that there is not just one way to view the world.

user
Wouldn’t post-modernism fit more in the realm of social sciences rather than the natural sciences?

ChatGPT
Yes, you’re correct. Post-modernism is more commonly associated with and applicable to the social sciences rather than the natural sciences. Here’s why:

1. Focus on Subjectivity and Context: Post-modernism emphasizes subjective interpretations and the influence of cultural, social, and historical contexts on our understanding of the world. These aspects are central to social sciences, which study human behavior, societies, and cultures. In contrast, natural sciences (like physics, chemistry, biology) primarily focus on objective, measurable phenomena and seek universal laws.
2. Nature of Knowledge: In natural sciences, knowledge is often seen as cumulative and based on empirical evidence and experimentation. In contrast, post-modernism in social sciences questions the idea of universal truths and highlights that knowledge is constructed through language, power relations, and social interactions.
3. Methodology and Approach: The methodologies of natural sciences are typically quantitative and aimed at generalization and prediction, based on observable and measurable data. In social sciences, while quantitative methods are used, post-modernism particularly influences qualitative research, which is interpretive and focuses on understanding the meaning and experiences of individuals within their social contexts.
4. Application in Research: Post-modern approaches are particularly useful in fields like sociology, anthropology, history, and literature, where understanding diverse perspectives and interpretations is crucial. In natural sciences, while the philosophy of science may involve some discussion of how knowledge is constructed, the empirical, objective approach is more predominant.

Therefore, while post-modernism can offer philosophical insights into the nature of knowledge in any field, its principles and applications are much more aligned with and influential in the realm of social sciences.

user
“Within the tradition of Qualitative Inquiry, positivism and post-modernism (phenomenology) exist as the two competing ontological approaches of seeing the world and understanding reality. While positivism allows for an evaluation of what is observed (i.e. text), it does not allow for interpretation as to what it could mean to an individual taking part in the inquiry. The individual’s sense of reality is subjugated to that which comes through in the text. Post-modernism allows for an interrogation of the individual’s sense of reality to gain greater understanding to their interpretation of facts and truths as presented in the text. “

ChatGPT
This passage discusses how positivism and post-modernism (particularly phenomenology, an aspect of post-modernism) represent two distinct ontological approaches within the field of Qualitative Inquiry:

1. Positivism in Qualitative Inquiry: In this context, positivism focuses on evaluating what is directly observed or recorded, such as textual data. It seeks to analyze this data as it is, without inferring or interpreting what it might mean on a personal level to the individuals involved in the study. The emphasis is on objective observation and analysis, where the individual’s personal understanding or experience is considered less important than the observable data (like text) itself.
2. Post-modernism in Qualitative Inquiry: Post-modernism, particularly through phenomenology, takes a different approach. It emphasizes exploring and understanding the individual’s own perception and interpretation of reality. This approach allows for a deeper interrogation of how individuals make sense of the facts and truths presented in the data (like text). It values the subjective experiences and interpretations of individuals, recognizing that each person may have a unique perspective on the information or experiences being studied.

Key Differences:

• Objective vs. Subjective: Positivism is more objective, focusing on what can be directly observed and measured. Post-modernism, on the other hand, is more subjective, emphasizing individual experiences and interpretations.
• Data Interpretation: Positivism limits interpretation to what is explicitly presented in the data, while post-modernism encourages exploring the meanings and interpretations that individuals attach to the data.

In summary, in the realm of Qualitative Inquiry, positivism and post-modernism represent two different ways of understanding reality: one is objective and focused on observable data, and the other is subjective, focusing on individuals’ interpretations and experiences.

user
Can you summarize these four approaches?

ChatGPT
Certainly! Here’s a summary of the four approaches – Realism, Empiricism, Positivism, and Post-modernism:

1. Realism: Realism is based on the belief that universal truths and facts exist independently of our perceptions. It asserts that these truths can be discovered through investigation and remain constant regardless of context. In realism, the world is seen as having a definite, objective reality that can be understood through observation and study.
2. Empiricism: Empiricism emphasizes that knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation. It rejects the notion of inherent truths existing without observation. In empiricism, understanding is built upon evidence gathered from the world around us, rather than preconceived notions or innate ideas.
3. Positivism: Positivism takes empiricism further, focusing strictly on what can be observed and measured. It argues that only phenomena that can be quantified and empirically verified are real. Positivism relies on structured methodologies like the scientific method to understand the world, emphasizing observable, objective facts over subjective experiences.
4. Post-modernism: Post-modernism, particularly in its phenomenological aspect, focuses on the subjective experiences and interpretations of individuals. It suggests that reality is not a fixed entity, but rather is constructed and understood differently by each person. Post-modernism values the diversity of perspectives and challenges the idea of universal truths, highlighting how personal and cultural contexts shape our understanding of the world.

In essence, these four approaches represent different perspectives on how we can understand and interpret the world: Realism and Positivism emphasize objective truths and observable facts, while Empiricism and Post-modernism focus more on subjective experiences and the interpretation of these facts.]

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s begin by anchoring ourselves in the request: we’re looking for a layman-friendly summary of the entire conversation. This conversation was fundamentally about simplifying abstract academic content, specifically relating to ontology in philosophy and social science. So we’ll proceed step by step.

First, let’s look at the structure of the interaction:

• The user wants help understanding dense academic text.
• The assistant responds by simplifying that text.
• The user gives a long paragraph about ontology from a philosophical and social science standpoint.
• The assistant breaks that paragraph down into simple terms.
• Then the user asks about the meaning of “realism,” a particular ontological viewpoint.
• The assistant explains it in plain language and gives an example using gravity.

So what’s going on here in essence?

Let’s try to map the arc of the conversation in layman terms ourselves.

---

1. User Goal: They’re trying to understand complicated academic writing on ontology, which is the study of what’s real or what exists.
2. Main Topic: The concept of ontology, how it has evolved, and how it applies to social science.
3. Assistant Response: It translates this concept into simpler language, showing:
   • Ontology = Asking “what is real?”
   • Old philosophy (like Plato/Aristotle) = If something has a physical form, it exists.
   • Enlightenment (Descartes) = Even thoughts prove existence (“I think, therefore I am”).
   • Social sciences = Reality depends on how each person sees it; there’s not just one version of reality.
   • There are four big approaches to reality in social sciences: realism, empiricism, positivism, postmodernism.

Then the conversation zooms in on one of these approaches: realism.

4. Realism Simplified:
   • Realism says: “Truths exist, and they’re the same everywhere, no matter the situation.”
   • These truths can be found through exploration.
   • Once discovered, these truths stay fixed. They don’t depend on who’s looking or where.
5. Example Given: Gravity.
   • It’s the same truth everywhere.
   • If you drop something, it falls — no matter who you are or where you are.
   • That’s a realist way of thinking: gravity is a universal truth.

---

So what’s the core of the conversation?

It’s a breakdown of how different people or fields think about what’s “real.”
The user is trying to demystify complex philosophical ideas.
The assistant is helping them rephrase and understand those ideas like they’re explaining them to someone new to the topic.

---

Let’s now pull all that together into a clean, compact summary while still keeping the “layman’s terms” goal in mind. </contemplator>

Summary in Layman’s Terms
The user asked for help simplifying a dense passage about ontology, which is basically the study of what is real or what exists. The assistant explained that:

• Originally, philosophers like Plato thought something was real if it had a physical form.
• Then Descartes came along and said thinking itself proves existence — so even mental stuff counts as real.
• In social sciences, thinkers like Husserl and Heidegger introduced the idea that reality depends on how individuals see and interpret the world — so reality isn’t the same for everyone.
• There are four main ways people think about reality in social science: realism, empiricism, positivism, and postmodernism.

The user then focused on one of those — realism — and asked what it means.

The assistant explained that realism is the belief that some facts are true no matter who you are or where you are — they’re universal. For example, the law of gravity: it applies everywhere and doesn’t depend on someone’s opinion. This is a classic realist view.

So overall, the conversation was about breaking down complex ideas about reality into simple, everyday terms.

---

Me: What are the different ontological perspectives? Explain each of them, like realism, empericism, etc.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright. Let’s slow this down and think it through carefully.

We’re being asked:
What are the different ontological perspectives?
We already have realism and empiricism mentioned. We might also include positivism and postmodernism, as the original passage hinted. But… what do these really mean when we’re talking about ontology — that is, our ideas about what’s real?

Let’s not assume anything. Let’s question from scratch.

First: What is ontology again?

Ontology is basically the part of philosophy — and now social science — that deals with questions like:

• What really exists?
• What is real, and what is just a perception or illusion?
• Is reality the same for everyone? Or is it different for each person?

So an ontological perspective is a way of answering those questions. A lens or belief system about what counts as real.

Different ontological perspectives = different answers to “what is real?”

Okay. So now, let’s begin by listing the common ontological perspectives in social science and philosophy:

1. Realism
2. Empiricism
3. Positivism
4. Constructivism (or interpretivism)
5. Postmodernism
6. Critical realism
7. Idealism

Hm. Already I feel tension: some of these overlap. For example, is positivism just a version of realism or empiricism? Is constructivism an answer to realism? Do postmodernism and constructivism say similar things? Let’s not try to sort that out yet. Let’s take them one at a time, in plain terms. And try not to rush. We’ll even double back if we need to.

---

1. Realism

Let’s start here.
This is maybe the most “commonsense” approach.

🟩 What does it say?
There is a real world out there. It exists whether or not we observe it.
Truths exist. Facts exist. They are the same no matter who you are.

🟩 What is real?
What’s real are objective facts — things that exist independently of your thoughts or beliefs.

🟩 Example:
Gravity exists. Rocks are hard. Trees grow. Whether you believe it or not, these things are real. They don’t change based on opinion.

🟩 In short:
Reality is out there, and we can discover it.

🟩 Doubt creeping in…
But how do we know what’s real if all we ever experience is our interpretation of it? A realist might say, “Science gets us there,” but already we can see how others might disagree…

---

2. Empiricism

Now here things get nuanced. Empiricism is about how we know what’s real.

🟦 What does it say?
We only know things through our senses — seeing, hearing, touching, etc.
Reality is what we can observe and experience directly.

🟦 What is real?
Things that we can see, touch, measure, test. If it can’t be experienced, we can’t really know it’s real.

🟦 Example:
We believe in gravity because we see things fall. We believe in bacteria because we see them under a microscope.

🟦 How is this different from realism?

• Realism says “Truth is out there, whether we perceive it or not.”
• Empiricism says “Truth comes from observation. If you can’t observe it, you can’t claim it.”

🟦 But wait…
Empiricism seems humble, but it also shuts out things like emotions, dreams, or subjective experiences — unless they can be measured. Is that a limitation? We’ll come back to that.

---

3. Positivism

This one is tricky because it blends both realism and empiricism but adds rules to make knowledge more “scientific.”

🟨 What does it say?
Only things that can be measured, tested, and verified through scientific methods are real or meaningful.
If it can’t be quantified, it’s not “knowledge.”

🟨 What is real?
Facts discovered through scientific observation, experiments, data.

🟨 Example:
A positivist might say: “Don’t tell me your feelings about poverty — give me the numbers, the stats, the trends. That’s reality.”

🟨 So what’s the twist?
Where realism just believes in an objective reality, positivism says: “We can only know that reality by following rigorous, scientific methods.”

🟨 Potential flaw:
Does this mean things like love, faith, or injustice aren’t real because they can’t be measured? Positivists might struggle here. Critics say this view leaves out the human side of reality.

---

4. Constructivism (or Interpretivism)

Here we begin to really challenge the earlier views.

🟪 What does it say?
Reality is not “out there” waiting to be found.
Reality is constructed by people. Different people create different meanings.

🟪 What is real?
What’s real is what people believe is real. Reality is shaped by culture, language, experience.

🟪 Example:
Money is only valuable because we agree it is. A courtroom is only powerful because we believe in the law. Race, gender, even time — all are shaped by human beliefs and social systems.

🟪 So no objective reality?
Not necessarily. But constructivists think what matters is how people experience the world, not just cold facts.

🟪 Why this matters in social science:
You can’t study human beings the same way you study atoms. People give meaning to things. Two people can experience the same event differently — and both are “real” in their own way.

🟪 Hmm…
This feels very different from positivism. It’s more human, more subjective. But also maybe more chaotic? If everyone has their own reality, how do we agree on anything?

---

5. Postmodernism

Okay. Now we’re really down the rabbit hole.

🟥 What does it say?
There is no single, universal truth. All truths are partial, contextual, and shaped by power, history, and culture.

🟥 What is real?
There’s no one answer. Everyone’s version of reality is valid — but also open to critique.

🟥 Key idea:
Truth is constructed — and often used by those in power to control others.

🟥 Example:
Who gets to write history? Who decides what counts as “normal”?
Postmodernists say: question those systems. Deconstruct the dominant narratives.

🟥 So what’s real?
There may be no stable “reality” — only competing stories about what’s real.

🟥 Warning signs:
This can feel destabilizing. If everything is relative, how do we decide what’s right or true? But maybe that’s the point — postmodernism forces us to question what we take for granted.

---

6. Critical Realism

Now we try to blend the hard objectivity of realism with the human-centered focus of constructivism.

🟧 What does it say?
Yes, there is a real world. But we can only know it through our social and personal experiences. Our access to truth is always partial.

🟧 Key idea:
Reality is layered. There’s the real world, and there’s how we experience or interpret it. We need both science and interpretation.

🟧 Example:
Poverty exists (real). But people experience poverty in different ways (subjective). So to understand poverty, we need both data and human stories.

🟧 Why this matters:
Critical realism tries to avoid the extremes — it’s not just cold facts, but it’s not just personal stories either. It says: be humble about what you can know.

🟧 Feels balanced… but
Is it too middle-of-the-road? Or maybe that’s its strength? It tries to keep the best of both sides — the structure of realism and the nuance of interpretation.

---

7. Idealism

And finally, let’s go even further back to a more radical view.

🟫 What does it say?
Reality is entirely mental or spiritual. There is no physical world outside of the mind — or if there is, we have no access to it.

🟫 Key figure:
George Berkeley. He said: “To be is to be perceived.” Nothing exists unless it is being thought about.

🟫 Modern example:
This shows up in simulation theory or in deep spiritual traditions. Is the world just an illusion? Is your mind creating all of this?

🟫 Feels extreme… but also…
Every time we dream, or hallucinate, or imagine something vividly… it reminds us how powerful the mind is in shaping experience.

🟫 So is this useful in social science?
Not directly, maybe — but it reminds us that consciousness and mental life are central to any discussion of reality.

---

Wrapping the perspectives together:

Ontological View	Core Belief	Reality is…	Strength	Weakness
Realism	Truth exists independently	Objective and fixed	Clear and firm foundation	Ignores subjectivity
Empiricism	We know truth by observing	What can be sensed	Grounded in experience	Misses internal realities
Positivism	Science defines truth	What can be measured	Precise and testable	Excludes human depth
Constructivism	Reality is made by people	Socially constructed	Captures meaning-making	Can feel too relative
Postmodernism	No universal truths	Fragmented, contextual	Reveals power structures	Risk of nihilism
Critical Realism	Truth exists but is filtered	Layered (real + experienced)	Balanced and nuanced	Can be complex to apply
Idealism	Mind creates reality	Mental or spiritual	Reminds us of perception	Not very practical

---

Wow. Okay. That was a journey.
We started with basic questions about reality and ended up in the realm of power, dreams, illusions, and partial truths.
Each perspective says something important.
Each one leaves something out.
And maybe that’s why ontology remains an open, evolving field — because our understanding of reality is never complete. </contemplator>

Final Answer:
Ontological perspectives are different ways of thinking about what is real. Common ones include:

1. Realism — Believes in objective truths that exist regardless of our perception.
2. Empiricism — Holds that reality is known through sensory experience and observation.
3. Positivism — Argues that only scientifically measurable things are real.
4. Constructivism (Interpretivism) — Says reality is shaped by human beliefs, culture, and interpretation.
5. Postmodernism — Rejects universal truths; all knowledge is context-dependent and shaped by power.
6. Critical Realism — Combines realism and constructivism; the world is real, but we access it through subjective experience.
7. Idealism — Believes reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual; the physical world may be an illusion.

Each offers a unique view on what it means to say something “exists” — and each shapes how we study and understand the world around us.

---

Me: Have you heard of metamodernism?

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Ah, yes — metamodernism. Now that’s a rich and slippery term. Slippery in a fascinating way. And it opens a whole new corridor of thought. But let me tread carefully here. I feel a little uncertain even as I begin.

Okay. Let’s try to place metamodernism in context first — both historically and philosophically — and then see how it might connect to ontology, which is the path we were walking just before this fork appeared.

First: Where does metamodernism come from?

Let’s think historically:

• Modernism was about progress, reason, grand narratives. Think: science will save us, art has deep purpose, rationality wins.
• Postmodernism came next. It said: “Hold on — all those grand narratives? They’re just stories. Truth is relative. Everything is constructed. Nothing is absolute.”
• Metamodernism, then, seems like… what? A pendulum swinging back?

Hm. Maybe. But that’s too simplistic. Let’s go deeper.

---

So what is metamodernism?

From what I’ve read and seen in the cultural, philosophical, and even artistic discourse, metamodernism is not just a mix of modernism and postmodernism. It’s more like an oscillation between them.

Yes. That’s the term often used: oscillation.

🌀 One moment it embraces sincerity, the next it steps back into irony.
🌀 One moment it believes in truth, the next it questions whether truth is possible.
🌀 One moment it seeks structure, the next it celebrates ambiguity.
🌀 It moves between hope and doubt, purpose and play, progress and critique.

It’s like being in a dance, moving between extremes — but not collapsing into either one.

Some scholars (like Vermeulen and van den Akker) have said it’s a structure of feeling — not quite a theory, not quite a framework. More like a vibe, or ethos.

Okay. That’s cultural. But you’re asking in an ontological sense, right?

---

What would a metamodern ontology look like?

Hmm… now this is fascinating. And tricky. Because metamodernism doesn’t have a fixed ontological doctrine. But I can infer, or construct, one by tracing its mood and assumptions.

Let’s reason through it.

1. Does it believe in reality?
   • Unlike extreme postmodernism, it doesn’t reject the idea of reality entirely.
   • But it also doesn’t claim to know it absolutely like a strict realist.
   • So maybe: it believes reality exists, but it’s filtered, fractured, perspectival — yet we can still reach toward it in meaningful ways.
2. Does it allow for multiple truths?
   • Yes. But it doesn’t drown in relativism like late postmodernism often does.
   • It might say: “Multiple truths can coexist, but we still have to act, decide, care.”
   • It balances plurality with a sense of ethical or existential responsibility.
3. Is it cynical or hopeful?
   • Both. And neither. It oscillates.
   • It might say: “We know things are complex and broken… but we’re still going to try.”
   • This gives it an emotional tone — a kind of informed idealism. A hope that doesn’t deny pain.
4. Is subjectivity important?
   • Very.
   • But so is intersubjectivity — the idea that meaning emerges between people, not just inside them.

So maybe a metamodern ontology believes:

“Reality exists. It’s messy, dynamic, layered. We perceive it through stories, systems, senses, and feelings — none of which are perfect. But we must still search for meaning, even knowing we’ll never grasp it fully.”

---

Can I find a metaphor?

Yes — always helps.

If realism is a rock, and postmodernism is smoke, then metamodernism is… maybe a wave.

You can ride it. You can feel its motion. You know it’s something real, but it’s never still. You can’t hold it, but you’re not lost in it either.

---

Could it be an ontological middle path?

I think that’s a fruitful way to look at it. It refuses binary oppositions:

• Truth vs. fiction
• Objective vs. subjective
• Sincere vs. ironic
• Real vs. imagined

Instead, it holds those tensions — not to resolve them, but to move with them.

It says:
“Let’s live with uncertainty and still care.”
“Let’s critique and still commit.”
“Let’s not know, and still act.”

---

Final thought — or a hesitation?

Can metamodernism ground science or politics or epistemology? That’s less clear.
It’s a mood more than a method.
But perhaps that’s its strength: in a fractured world, it allows us to keep moving — thoughtfully, playfully, and vulnerably — without pretending we have all the answers. </contemplator>

Final Answer
Yes, metamodernism is a cultural and philosophical stance that oscillates between modernist ideals (like truth, progress, structure) and postmodernist skepticism (like irony, deconstruction, relativism). In terms of ontology, it suggests that reality exists, but we can only engage with it through shifting, layered, and imperfect lenses. It holds both belief and doubt at once — affirming that while truth may be elusive, the search for meaning is still worthwhile.

---

Me: Continue with metamodernism.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Right — I had just paused at a delicate threshold: Can metamodernism ground anything? Can it serve as a foundation, ontologically speaking? Or is it too fluid, too oscillatory to anchor anything firm?

This is where the brain starts folding in on itself a little.

Let’s slow down.

---

First, do we need ontological grounding?

Traditional ontology often tries to anchor us. To tell us what is real, what exists, and how. Realism says there is an objective world out there. Postmodernism, in contrast, unmoors us: everything is constructed, contingent, relative. It critiques the very idea of grounding.

So metamodernism arrives in the aftermath of that critique, walking through the ruins. It sees the shattered pillars of certainty. And… it doesn’t rebuild them exactly. Instead, it seems to hover, deliberately, over the question of grounding.

But here’s the catch: it doesn’t abandon the search. It cares.

This is crucial.

Whereas postmodernism often revels in its detachment, metamodernism wants meaning. It wants connection. It wants hope. Even if it knows those things are unstable. Even if it knows they might be illusions. It still reaches.

So maybe we’re not asking whether metamodernism grounds us the way traditional ontology does — but whether it offers a way of being in a world without firm ground.

That’s something very different.

---

Let’s revisit that wave metaphor

We said earlier: if realism is a rock, postmodernism is smoke, then metamodernism is a wave.

That metaphor is working harder than I first realized. A wave isn’t static. But it’s not nothing. It has shape, force, rhythm, and consequence. You can’t hold it in your hand, but you can ride it. You can drown in it too.

So — is metamodernism proposing a fluid ontology? Something dynamic, flexible, rhythmic?

Possibly.

It seems to imply that our relationship to reality is not linear, but recursive — we go back and forth, forward and backward. We oscillate between belief and doubt, between engagement and critique, between feeling and distance.

And through that motion, we co-create something real. Maybe not The Real in a capital-T truth sense. But real enough to live with, act through, and care about.

So maybe metamodern ontology is a kind of sincere doubt. Or hopeful skepticism.

---

Let’s try to name some features of a metamodern ontology

Let me try to outline it loosely — and I’ll question each point as I go:

1. Reality exists… probably.
   • It doesn’t fully buy the postmodern claim that all is text or construction.
   • But it doesn’t trust realism’s clean objectivity either.
   • It behaves as if there is a world out there — but it accepts that our access to it is always partial, mediated, interpretive.
2. Perception is layered and complex.
   • We see the world through culture, language, memory, emotion.
   • No single lens is complete.
   • That sounds almost phenomenological — and there’s a kinship here with Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty: we are always already in-the-world, not separate from it.
3. Truth is relational, not absolute.
   • Not fully relativist.
   • Not absolutist.
   • Truth emerges in the space between perspectives — intersubjectivity is key.
4. Meaning is necessary but fragile.
   • We create meaning — through art, love, politics, story — and we know it might not last.
   • But we don’t shrug it off. We lean in anyway.
   • There’s something profoundly existential here. Like Camus’ “myth of Sisyphus” — we push the boulder, not because we expect it to stay, but because the act itself is meaningful.
5. The self is porous.
   • Not a fixed ego, but a shifting node in networks of language, experience, and memory.
   • Yet it still feels, longs, remembers.
   • So we’re not machines. We’re haunted, hopeful beings.
6. Emotion is valid epistemology.
   • Feeling is not less than thinking.
   • Aesthetic and emotional ways of knowing are not just decoration — they are modes of being.
   • Metamodernism values irony and earnestness. This is huge.

---

Artistic and cultural reflections

Metamodernism is often easier to spot in art and media than in philosophy.

Think of shows like BoJack Horseman, Fleabag, or Everything Everywhere All At Once. They blend humor and heartbreak. They are aware of their own absurdity, yet they still try to feel something real.

Or in music — artists like Sufjan Stevens, Mitski, or Kendrick Lamar — oscillate between vulnerability and self-aware performance. They’re post-ironic, but not post-caring.

So in that way, metamodernism becomes not just a philosophy, but a mood. A way of being in a world that’s lost its gods but still wants redemption.

---

Back to ontology

Okay. Deep breath. Let’s return to the question.

Can metamodernism be an ontological perspective?

I think so — but not in the classical sense. It doesn’t offer foundational answers about being. It offers a way to live with the questions.

It says:

• “We don’t know what’s real — but we’re still going to try to act as if it matters.”
• “We’re skeptical — but also sincere.”
• “We’re aware of the constructs — but still drawn to meaning.”

In this sense, metamodern ontology is less about being, and more about becoming. A kind of processual, relational, emotionally aware stance toward reality.

It doesn’t anchor you.

But it helps you move.

---

Maybe it’s a philosophy for our time

In a world of climate collapse, digital fragmentation, post-truth politics, and ironic memes — we still crave meaning. We still hope. We still act.

Metamodernism might be the ontology that says:

“Yes, the world is broken and beautiful. Yes, truth is hard to hold. Yes, we will keep trying anyway.”

That’s not naive.

That’s brave.

And maybe that’s what being looks like now. </contemplator>

END.

---

Supplimental sources.

https://www.frieze.com/video/what-metamodernism // Philosophers explain metamodernism.

// // The lecturer here on Ontology provides a Western lens of the cycle of philosophy. He is very quick to dismiss mysticism. He is biased because what he calls “mystical nonsense” in the cycle is rich especially in Eastern philosophy, and completely epistemologically required.