Ontology of Substances and Ontology of Facts: back to Comparison

The purpose of this work is to characterize clearly the early Wittgenstein’s position in context contemporary discussions between adherers classical ontology, based on notion substance, and its detractors. Aristotle’s ousiology usually regarded as a locus classicus substantial ontology. A noticeable tendency philosophy rejective stance towards substance vision reality ‘totality things’ ( summa rerum ). This trend goes through 20th century (B. Russell, etc.) prominent 21th century. Wittgenstein, who calls world totality facts, not things, sustainably secondary literature herald non-classical way thought, presented his ontology facts - radical alternative However, how can claim cohere with active usage substantialism terms, going back Aristotle, “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”? In order answer question, it’s advisably address, starting point analysis, B. Wolniewicz comparing Wittgensteinian Aristotelian pointing out only difference, but also parallelism them. present paper, shown that some Wolniewicz’s remarks are valuable, overall view problem should be corrected supplemented taking into account nuances both ontologies. Having mind results one read statement about role forms thought for philosopher proposing worldview, which helps elucidate structure ontological discussions.