There’s the question of what there is, and then there’s the question of what ultimately exists. Many contend that, once we have this distinction clearly in mind, we can see that there is no sensible debate to be had about whether there are such things as properties or tables or numbers, and that the only ontological question worth debating is whether such things are (in one or another sense) ultimate. I argue that this is a mistake. Taking debates about ordinary objects as a case study, I show that the arguments that animate these debates bear directly on the question of which objects there are and cannot plausibly be recast as arguments about what’s ultimate. I then address the objection that, because they are easily answerable, questions about what there is cannot be a proper subject of ontological debate.

中文翻译：

---

为什么要关心现有的东西？

首先是存在什么的问题，然后是最终存在什么的问题。许多人认为，一旦我们清楚地记住了这种区别，我们就可以看到，对于是否存在诸如属性、表格或数字之类的东西，就没有任何明智的争论了，唯一值得争论的本体论问题是这些东西是否存在（在某种意义上）是终极的。我认为这是一个错误。以关于普通物体的辩论作为案例研究，我表明激发这些辩论的论点直接关系到存在哪些物体的问题，并且不能合理地将其重新转换为关于什么是终极的论点。然后，我提出了这样的反对意见：因为这些问题很容易回答，所以关于存在的问题不能成为本体论辩论的适当主题。