ABSTRACT
The idea of the Great Chain of Being was a foundation stone of philosophy from Plato to the nineteenth century. Under the onslaught of various schools of thought, the idea was eventually banished from philosophy, retreating into the corners of esotericism. The idea of an ontological hierarchy, however, merits reappraisal. Rechristening it more prosaically as the hierarchy of being and pruning it of its wilder and less plausible offshoots, we find a concept worthy of reconsideration. After surveying the historical fate of the hierarchy, focusing of the famous work of Arthur Lovejoy, and then identifying the reasons for its demise, I develop a rigorous definition of metaphysical superiority deriving from an understanding of the hierarchy as found in Aristotle and Aquinas. The definition is exemplified by cases taken from the hierarchy and defended against challenges and possible counterexamples. Having argued that my definition survives these objections, I conclude that the concept of a hierarchy of being still has much to commend it, deserving serious reconsideration and perhaps even reinstatement at the core of sound philosophy.
