The ways in which humans experience, interpret, and engage with the world around them are deeply influenced by their cosmologies and ontologies. These two concepts, while closely related, describe different but intertwined aspects of human thought and existence. Cosmology refers to the overarching worldview or belief system that explains the origin, structure, and meaning of the universe, including humanity’s place within it. Ontology, on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of being and reality—the fundamental categories of existence and the relationships between those categories. In simpler terms, cosmologies tell us why the world is the way it is, and ontologies tell us what the world is made of and how its parts relate.

Through the lens of these concepts, we can see how different societies and cultures create meaning and how these meanings shape everyday life. Cosmologies and ontologies are not static but are fluid and shift over time, reflecting changing social, political, and environmental contexts. This article will explore these ideas, using examples from philosophy, anthropology, and history, to illustrate how cosmologies and ontologies shape human experience and perception.

The Lifeworld: Husserl's Phenomenological Perspective on Everyday Experience

To begin, we can examine how cosmologies and ontologies influence our day-to-day existence by returning to the concept of the lifeworld (Lebenswelt) introduced by Edmund Husserl. Husserl’s phenomenology provides a framework for understanding how we experience the world around us before we start reflecting or theorizing about it. As discussed in previous explorations of lifeworlds, this concept encompasses the pre-reflective, taken-for-granted reality of our everyday lives—how we experience the world naturally through our senses, emotions, and habitual practices.

For Husserl, the lifeworld is shaped by two attitudes: the natural attitude, in which we engage with the world in a straightforward, unexamined way, and the reflective attitude, where we step back and analyze our experience. Both cosmology and ontology are embedded in the natural attitude. We don’t typically think about the cosmological beliefs or ontological assumptions that underlie our everyday actions, but they are always there, informing how we move through the world, what we value, and how we relate to our surroundings. These frameworks are as much a part of our lifeworld as the physical environment itself.

For example, in many Western cultures, the dominant cosmology is shaped by a scientific understanding of the universe: the Earth is part of a vast, indifferent cosmos, and human life is a product of biological evolution. This cosmology influences an ontology that often emphasizes the separation of mind and matter, humanity and nature. As we go about our daily lives, this dualistic ontology shapes how we interact with the world, often placing human beings in a position of dominance over nature.

Language and Ontology: How Words Shape Perception

Language plays a crucial role in shaping both cosmologies and ontologies, influencing how people perceive and relate to the world around them. Different languages encode different ways of understanding reality, which in turn reflect different ontological assumptions.

One striking example is the way languages assign gender to nouns. In languages like French, Spanish, and German, objects are gendered—chairs, trees, and rivers are either masculine or feminine. This linguistic gendering reflects an underlying ontology in which all things are imbued with a gendered essence. Although this might seem like a small detail, it can significantly influence how speakers of those languages perceive and interact with the material world. For instance, studies have shown that speakers of languages that gender objects may subconsciously ascribe gendered characteristics to those objects, affecting how they describe or think about them.

Similarly, some Indigenous languages in North America, like those of the Algonquian language family, do not rely on the same noun-verb distinction as Indo-European languages. Instead of categorizing the world into static objects and dynamic actions (nouns and verbs), these languages often treat the world as being in constant motion, where entities and processes are intertwined. For example, in the Potawatomi language, verbs are used to describe the "being" of a tree, rather than treating the tree as a passive, static object. This reflects an ontology where the world is understood as an interconnected web of living processes, rather than a collection of discrete entities. In this worldview, human beings are part of this flow of life, not separate from it.

This linguistic difference is more than just a matter of grammar; it encodes a cosmological and ontological perspective in which the boundaries between humans, animals, plants, and even rocks are more fluid. Such a worldview fosters a sense of kinship with the natural world rather than dominance over it, as is often the case in Western cosmologies.

Ontologies of Human-Nature Relations: From Dominance to Kinship

The relationship between humans and the natural world is one of the most significant areas where ontologies differ across cultures. In many Western societies, especially since the Enlightenment, the dominant ontology has been one of human superiority and control over nature. This perspective is rooted in a dualistic cosmology that separates humans from the rest of the natural world, positioning human beings as rational agents capable of mastering and manipulating nature for their own ends. This ontological framework underpins much of modern science, industry, and agriculture, where nature is often seen as a resource to be exploited.

However, this is not the only way humans can relate to the natural world. Many Indigenous cultures around the world have developed ontologies that emphasize kinship between humans and non-human beings. In these ontologies, animals, plants, rivers, and mountains are often understood as relatives or kin, with their own agency and personhood. For example, the cosmologies of many Native American tribes, such as the Lakota or the Haudenosaunee, include the belief that humans are part of a larger family that includes animals, plants, and even celestial bodies. The Lakota phrase Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ—meaning "all my relations"—encapsulates this worldview, acknowledging the interconnectedness of all living and non-living beings.

In these kinship-based ontologies, the natural world is not something to be dominated or controlled, but rather something to be respected, cared for, and honored. This relational approach fosters a sense of stewardship and reciprocity, where humans are not the masters of nature but its caretakers. Such an ontology shapes everyday practices, from hunting and agriculture to ceremonies and rituals, ensuring that human actions are aligned with the needs and rhythms of the natural world.

In contrast, other ontologies might frame the natural world as something to be feared or something to which humans must submit. For instance, in certain historical periods, including medieval Christian cosmology in Europe, the natural world was often seen as a source of danger, chaos, and sin, something to be tamed through divine grace or human intervention. Nature was associated with wildness, disorder, and even moral corruption, and the human task was to bring it under control through hard work, discipline, and faith. This worldview contributed to the development of agriculture, the enclosure of land, and the rise of cities, where the “wild” was kept at bay.

Cosmologies and Ontologies in the History of England: A Shifting Landscape

England provides a compelling case study for how cosmologies and ontologies change over time, reflecting broader shifts in society, religion, and politics. During the medieval period, Christian cosmology was dominant, framing the world as a hierarchical system ordained by God. In this cosmology, everything in the universe had its place, from the angels in heaven to the peasants on Earth. Humans were seen as stewards of creation, but only under God’s guidance. The natural world, while still part of God’s creation, was often viewed as something to be subdued and controlled, reflecting a broader ontology of human dominance over nature.

This worldview began to change dramatically during the Enlightenment. The rise of science and rationalism introduced a new cosmology, in which the universe was seen as a vast, mechanical system governed by natural laws. In this view, humans were no longer the stewards of God’s creation but the rational agents who could discover, manipulate, and harness the forces of nature for their own benefit. This shift brought with it an ontology that emphasized the separation of mind and matter, culture and nature, with humans placed firmly in the position of control.

The Industrial Revolution in England further entrenched this ontology, as the natural world became increasingly viewed as a resource for human progress. The extraction of coal, the expansion of agriculture, and the growth of factories all reflected a worldview in which human mastery over nature was not only possible but desirable. The cosmology of industrial capitalism, with its focus on growth, progress, and exploitation of resources, continues to shape much of modern Western thought today.

However, this dominant cosmology is not the only one that has existed in England, nor is it unchallenged. In earlier periods, Celtic cosmologies and ontologies placed humans in a more integrated relationship with the natural world, where sacred groves, rivers, and animals were respected as part of the divine order. Even today, alternative ontologies are emerging in response to environmental crises, with movements such as rewilding, ecological restoration, and permaculture emphasizing a more reciprocal relationship with nature. These new cosmologies and ontologies challenge the idea of human dominance and propose a more harmonious, interconnected vision of the world.

The Fluidity of Cosmologies and Ontologies

Cosmologies and ontologies are not fixed; they are dynamic, evolving as societies change and adapt to new circumstances. The history of England shows how different cosmologies and ontologies have risen, flourished, and been replaced over time, and this process continues in the present day. The scientific, capitalist cosmology that dominates much of the modern world is just one in a long line of worldviews that have shaped human perception and interaction with the material world.

Understanding that our current way of seeing the world is one of many helps us to question the assumptions we take for granted. By exploring other cosmologies and ontologies—whether those of Indigenous peoples, ancient cultures, or contemporary movements—we can begin to imagine new ways of relating to the world. Just as Husserl’s lifeworld helps us see how our everyday experiences are shaped by underlying assumptions, so too can the study of cosmologies and ontologies help us recognize the fluid, contingent nature of our worldviews and open up new possibilities for more meaningful, sustainable ways of living.