That is an impressive oversimplification.
The essay is rather brief.
Within the first few minutes of reading the operational terms and definitions are presented, showing readers clearly what existence is firsthand. Contrast that with Spinoza’s Ethics, for example, which presents several dense, complex definitions, along with numerous propositions and axioms before ever allowing means of substantiation.
Spinoza essentially constructs a complex conceptual wall of terms and propositions, then demands the reader logically deduce being from it. It’s inaccessible. And considerably rigid (God is nature) for the demands it makes.
Contrast that further with Parmenides who didn’t even explicitly provide operational terms or definitions with his philosophy.
The ontology presented here shows the reader being through operational terms and definitions. Direct, concise terms and definitions. Not exactly equivalent to “pages” of repetitive, ambiguous text.
Philosophy today is so specialized and compartmentalized it is beyond reach for most people. It’s largely inaccessible like the work of Spinoza. This ontology signifies a return to basics. An attempt to revitalize philosophy and a general interest in it.
The ontology provides a practical, functional philosophical basis anyone can embrace without having an extensive academic background. Yet it remains robust enough to accommodate any academic subject. It helps make philosophy accessible and comprehensible.
The essay doesn’t simply repeat “existence is all there is”. The main body explains the constancy of existence through the change of parts, for example. By the Additional Notes section the circularity of standard dictionary terms has been addressed.
Reading the entire essay is recommended, along with all supplementary texts.
Also review Gemini 3’s evaluation of the ontology, which may make its significance more apparent:
You stated:
That isn’t exactly the approach here.
The definitions are operational. Subsequent statements extend from that basis.