Scholarlink

Abstract <p>Marcello Oreste Fiocco’s book <i>Time and the World. Every Thing and Then Some</i> (Oxford University Press 2024) is a prime example of how to do metaphysics (and – I would venture to say – philosophy in the most proper sense). The book can be divided into three intertwined parts. Although Fiocco does not use the term ‘metaphilosophy,’ I think the first part can be understood as a reasoned exposition of his concept of philosophy, more precisely his concept of metaphysics. The second part presents Fiocco’s ontology, understood as what is revealed about the structure of reality through the above-mentioned metaphilosophy. The third part deals with metaphysics of time. In this part, Fiocco provides an account of time itself, appealing to the ontological principles previously laid out. Fiocco’s metaphysics of time is based on his ontology, which in turn is based on his metaphilosophy. My criticism will mainly focus on the latter, i.e., on the very ground of his commendable philosophical enterprise.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Review of Time and the World. Every Thing and Then Some

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月20日

查看全文
  • Marco Simionato

摘要

Abstract

Marcello Oreste Fiocco’s book Time and the World. Every Thing and Then Some (Oxford University Press 2024) is a prime example of how to do metaphysics (and – I would venture to say – philosophy in the most proper sense). The book can be divided into three intertwined parts. Although Fiocco does not use the term ‘metaphilosophy,’ I think the first part can be understood as a reasoned exposition of his concept of philosophy, more precisely his concept of metaphysics. The second part presents Fiocco’s ontology, understood as what is revealed about the structure of reality through the above-mentioned metaphilosophy. The third part deals with metaphysics of time. In this part, Fiocco provides an account of time itself, appealing to the ontological principles previously laid out. Fiocco’s metaphysics of time is based on his ontology, which in turn is based on his metaphilosophy. My criticism will mainly focus on the latter, i.e., on the very ground of his commendable philosophical enterprise.