Ontology specifies structures of being while metaphysics questions the existence of the existent

Evidence

In this sense ontology appears to us capable of being defined as the specification of the structures of being of the existent taken as a totality, and we shall define metaphysics rather as raising the question of the existence of the existent. This is why in view of the absolute contingency of the existent, we are convinced that any metaphysics must conclude with a “that is”—i.e., in a direct intuition of that contingency. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 799

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sartre’s precise demarcation of ontology versus metaphysics, and the claim that metaphysics terminates in a direct intuition of contingency.
• XREF: Directly relevant to Beauvoir’s existential ethics, which grounds value in this contingency rather than fleeing from it. — connects to: Ontology is descriptive while metaphysics is hypothetical and concerns origins; Even the ontological question reduces being itself to another phenomenon — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 122; Metaphysics studies individual world-genesis where ontology studies universal structures — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1434 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Metaphysics studies individual world-genesis where ontology studies universal structures #contradicts (0.85) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1434
• The ontological difference distinguishes specific entities from the Being they have. #expands (0.82)
• Ontology describes the conditions under which a world and human reality exist #expands (0.80)
• Denying metaphysics in favor of science is itself a metaphysical position #epitomizes (0.80) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 294
• Metaphysics privileges the present tense by defining past and future as modifications of presence #exemplifies (0.78) — Catherine Malabou, The Future of Hegel, 195