Ontology and Epistomology are both Teleologically Defined, and Epistomology has an Ontology, since Induction , Deduction, and other Fact Sentences have a Ontological Form, and these Sentences are Results that emerge in our Brain, and are these results emerge because they are being directed by Results that are not part of what emerges & Exists; These Results are neither nere nor there, for this is the very thing that requires explanation.
I believe in sort of Cartesianism: I exist in the world. But this does not imply any abstract space-temporal attachment. As my assumption puts it, the "I" and the "world" come to being at the same time. I guess this is sort of the there-here you are talking about.
but...you can't properly be 'cold' in a human way without the concept of 'being cold'. Heidegger says being-in-the-world and the body aren't really fundamental for his project--they aren't even in principle necessary, when compared to the "understanding of being" -- you relapse, again, into the dualistic thinking when you reject representationalism or concepts, or epistemology more generally, when you speak of these things are somehow different from stimulus or motivation (ie non-worldly).
3 I think Sartre is much to blame for the failure, for in the step he makes to suggest that we are contingent but also responsible, he avoids what Foucault achieved. Foucault's genealogy historicizes Deweyan customs and habits. Here, impulses have histories, pasts that locate the them in the us, that make us wonder about our own oppressive gestures. Emerson is the hero, he locates the site of attention in the heart. Nietzsche, the provoker, admired Emerson -- Dewey was moved. Are we?
1 There is a deep curricular issue at steak. Existentialism (not Heidegger) fails. It is the perfect dead end as an elective for an otherwise epistemology centered set of prerequisites in philosophy departments. Students are "formed" either to embrace the standardized offering, or toil in the marginalized existentialist conversation. I think that pragmatism and existentialism are homologous -- Dewey began as an Hegelian.
2 In the hands of Shearson/Fackenheim existentialism tries to hang on to Kantian "conditions of possibility." However, this critique here would require a metaphilosophical reconstruction of curriculum. It becomes problematic because it is an idiosyncratic ontological confession, wholly tied to the workability of ideas to solve problems, as opposed to securing certainty by a pyramid of irrefutable assertions. Philosophy is evil not in its speech, but its political silence, its unworldlyness.
So what? Yes the sensing organism is part of the sensed environment. AND the knowing organism or self is part of the known environment or other. That intuition (sensing what is known) better match reality (knowing what is sensed) or depersonalization/derealization sets in. We can and do handle such collectively but mimetic desire and group polarization keep driving us to war from time to time, to settle 'ontology' or whatever the high and mighty would like for themselves.
Plants and animals share a common ancestor, we didn't come from a plant. Plant cells (or what would become plant cells) and animal cells separated long before plants and animals became distinct.
I must keep disagreeing (vehemently) on this one, and it is important. Ontology should not be LOGICALLY prior to Epistemology. You are confusing things that "are" with a human's ability to understand those things. You don't seem to be making a distinction between the causality that creates the "being", and a person trying to understand that causality. (MORE)
In other words, you are calling the causality itself "Ontology", when "Ontology" is NOT the actual happenings, but RATHER our study and attempts to understand and distinguish those things. For us to be able to understand those things in a logical context, epistemology should be prior to it. Noone is denying those things are there before we even use language, but to understand those things, an epistemological standard is crucial CRITERIA. (MORE)
In other words, do not conflate things that "are" with a humans ability to understand those things, and the importance of an epistemologal standard in which to apply TO understanding those things logically.
ontology is logically prior. epistemology is inherently in the realm of the abstract. but for example you can create abstract, logically coherent systems in math that have absolutely nothing to do with reality, with the ontos. if one puts the cart of perception before what constitutes it one is constantly vurnerable to then transgress into ontological proofs that rationalize gods.
You are doing the very same thing as the professor here. You are defining ontology as "being" or "existence" instead of the "study and understanding of being or existence". To be able to study/understand, we should use logic and we need to be able to obtain some form of knowledge ABOUT existence to do so. What I am saying is, we should look at the criteria used for obtaining such knowledge (which is epistemology) first.
sure, and you are artificially separating the totality into studing and studied.
of course there is no being or even study of being without knowledge... in this way the question of what it is that is outside of universe becomes meaningless on the basis of physical impossibility of reaching it.
but, to use extreme case, one does not reject or accept god on the basis of epistemological argument but ontology one prescribes to. think why it is so hard to unconvince theists...
i'm convinced that it's exactly because ontology is logically prior. on the other hand i won't deny that the best way to reach them is by modifying their epistemology.
"artificially separating the totality into studing and studied."
This is what ontology is. Ontology is a subject matter.
My epistemological standards are an important factor in my rejection of a god concept, and they precede the logic I use to conclude the ontology for the rejection.
Keep in mind that I am not saying people don't come to ontological conclusions prior to epistemology. I am just saying it is an illogical way to do so.
The study of knowledge should precede any other study in which knowledge of something is needed for that study. Ontology is the study of the nature of "being, existence or reality", in which we need to "know" things to study. If we do not apply a standard of epistemology first, we assume "knowledge" without a consistent standard for it. Hope this clears things up. :)
Not really, for knowledge relations ARE only one kind of relation that people maintain with the world. Claims to knowledge, and truth conditions, emerge after one has learned to operate in the world at a silent level.
Is there an epistemology of the silent infant (infant means without speech)? Is learning to stand, walk, or even speak true or false? Or simply actualized or not?
Is it not interesting that people emerge to self-awareness only AFTER having already started their being?
Again, you are defining Ontology as what "is", instead of subject matter thought about. The baby example is a good one. I don't think any baby is addressing Ontology (or Epistemology for that matter). You are confusing what "is" with the word Ontology, instead of it being a SUBJECT for people to try to understand using a methodology such as logic (in which we try to figure out that "is" for example). (MORE)
There is a huge distinction between the "being of an infant" and the "subject of the being of an infant in which we address in philosophy". The latter is Ontology.
look. even the logic you employ in your "studies" whether it be the being or its perception is already a given. can a syllogism be other way than it is? perhaps it could. in a different universe. but it's not the matter of epistemology but ontology. period.
I am just clearing up what it means to address Ontology, and why addressing Epistemology should precede it. It is not may fault if you conflate Ontology with "being". Your conflation if Ontology is like conflating Epistemology with having "knowledge", when it really is concerned with obtaining a theory OF knowledge (the nature and scope). It is an important distinction that is being overlooked.
no, you are just hiding behind dictionary definitions. if i were to do the same then i'd have to tell you that only true theory of being is physics. and even if its only source of truth is experiment and experience the end of its ultimate investigation are transcendental laws that are at the base of those perceptions. words used to communicate can be discarded after you get the message the same way epistemology is merely superfluous element of ontology. (cont.)
Sorry, but I really could not parse what you are saying as soon as you talk about "transcendental laws" and "words being discarded" for this discussion. Also not really sure why you think "to be or not to be" is the core of philosophy, or why you think we can conclude "to be or not to be" without knowledge.
well, does any physics or math law have anything to do with epistemology? does it matter if we write one as "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" or "2+a ^ 3+a & 4+a"? symbols can be discarded! true, we cannot conclude anything without knowledge, but the question "to be or not to be" is beyond knowledge. knowledge comes from within being. of course in a way it's a matter of "chicken or egg" perspective. but you can not seriously imply that epistemology we choose has any bearing on the shape of the world as it is.
If you think this, then this IS an epistemological standard you are applying (one that I think would need to be addressed prior to ontological analysis).
And what does bearing on the shape of the world have anything to do with our discussion. Sorry, but it would be better if we stay on topic.
it is on topic. what is the point of this discussion or any other philosophical debate if not attainment of the truth in the shape of laws governing the world? i'm trying to show you that epistemology even though we are forced to consider it first due to perceptual split into subject and object is really secondary. it has no bearing on the world as it is. it can be completely arbitrary as i pointed out in my first comment in this thread. abstract is as significant as the empirical. with (cont.)
any given epistemology at the worst we'll be totally confused, at best we'll gain better picture of reality. but then it would indeed imply that epistemology is forced on us by the universe, so it can not be that epistemology is primal. it would rather imply that being is a condition for epistemology and so ontology, whether we define it as mere study of being or being itself, comes before any framework about knowledge. on a more humanistic level there is a question of what is the (cont.)
motivation behind all our investigations? do we philosophy because we know or because we exist? i'm not denying that epistemology is important part of philosophy. i'm merely vehemently disagreeing with the fact that it being first part of all our theories is the one, most important part. without tools we'd be nothing, but tools are only means to a goal of improving our lives the same way epistemology is only a tool of discovering nature of being. and in this way i see it more as subset (cont.)
We have to apply a methodology to even have a Philosophical discussion. Epistemology helps focus on what methodologies we should use (which ones are most consistent, reliable, etc) You suggesting that a discussion on Ontology should precede one on Epistemology is basically saying that you don't care what methodology is better for the topic. In that way you can have any Ontology you DESIRE or FEEL and not be held accountable to whether it follows a logical standard.
My whole argument is not against the fact that you can have an ontology based on what you desire and feel. My whole argument is that it is not logical to do so. It is on the importance of standards, not that one HAS to use them. Glad we (sort of) agree here.
btw - I think "isness" comes before cognition, but our ability to understand or "know" that does not.
Ontology and Epistomology are both Teleologically Defined, and Epistomology has an Ontology, since Induction , Deduction, and other Fact Sentences have a Ontological Form, and these Sentences are Results that emerge in our Brain, and are these results emerge because they are being directed by Results that are not part of what emerges & Exists; These Results are neither nere nor there, for this is the very thing that requires explanation.
CammieSpectrum 1 year ago
The way I look at it, is this:
Ontology is the bone. Epistemology is the pussy.
...and we all know that reality is more like a dick up the ass than a pussy on a stick, so why bother with epistemology as urgently?
Armando7654 2 years ago
I believe in sort of Cartesianism: I exist in the world. But this does not imply any abstract space-temporal attachment. As my assumption puts it, the "I" and the "world" come to being at the same time. I guess this is sort of the there-here you are talking about.
Israe5l 2 years ago
Yes. Helpful
Professoranton 2 years ago
Is this not the early Heideggerian project - to place ontology at the 'center' of concern?
Anarch0tec 2 years ago
Agreed!
Professoranton 2 years ago
but...you can't properly be 'cold' in a human way without the concept of 'being cold'. Heidegger says being-in-the-world and the body aren't really fundamental for his project--they aren't even in principle necessary, when compared to the "understanding of being" -- you relapse, again, into the dualistic thinking when you reject representationalism or concepts, or epistemology more generally, when you speak of these things are somehow different from stimulus or motivation (ie non-worldly).
ComplexEmergence 2 years ago
that which comes later, has remained earlier as a negative trace :P
anujdasgupta 2 years ago
3 I think Sartre is much to blame for the failure, for in the step he makes to suggest that we are contingent but also responsible, he avoids what Foucault achieved. Foucault's genealogy historicizes Deweyan customs and habits. Here, impulses have histories, pasts that locate the them in the us, that make us wonder about our own oppressive gestures. Emerson is the hero, he locates the site of attention in the heart. Nietzsche, the provoker, admired Emerson -- Dewey was moved. Are we?
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
1 There is a deep curricular issue at steak. Existentialism (not Heidegger) fails. It is the perfect dead end as an elective for an otherwise epistemology centered set of prerequisites in philosophy departments. Students are "formed" either to embrace the standardized offering, or toil in the marginalized existentialist conversation. I think that pragmatism and existentialism are homologous -- Dewey began as an Hegelian.
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
2 In the hands of Shearson/Fackenheim existentialism tries to hang on to Kantian "conditions of possibility." However, this critique here would require a metaphilosophical reconstruction of curriculum. It becomes problematic because it is an idiosyncratic ontological confession, wholly tied to the workability of ideas to solve problems, as opposed to securing certainty by a pyramid of irrefutable assertions. Philosophy is evil not in its speech, but its political silence, its unworldlyness.
aaronhemeon 2 years ago
So what? Yes the sensing organism is part of the sensed environment. AND the knowing organism or self is part of the known environment or other. That intuition (sensing what is known) better match reality (knowing what is sensed) or depersonalization/derealization sets in. We can and do handle such collectively but mimetic desire and group polarization keep driving us to war from time to time, to settle 'ontology' or whatever the high and mighty would like for themselves.
RonCDeWeijze 2 years ago
Plants and animals share a common ancestor, we didn't come from a plant. Plant cells (or what would become plant cells) and animal cells separated long before plants and animals became distinct.
Hamandchees3 2 years ago
Corey, Peace's vid response above isn't a response.
directspirit 2 years ago
Classical Epistemology is dead.
It has been superseded by neuroscience, semiotics, and neuro-linguistics.
otonanoC 2 years ago
there should be a way of favouriting users... not just single, particular videos...
jogayot 2 years ago
I must keep disagreeing (vehemently) on this one, and it is important. Ontology should not be LOGICALLY prior to Epistemology. You are confusing things that "are" with a human's ability to understand those things. You don't seem to be making a distinction between the causality that creates the "being", and a person trying to understand that causality. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
In other words, you are calling the causality itself "Ontology", when "Ontology" is NOT the actual happenings, but RATHER our study and attempts to understand and distinguish those things. For us to be able to understand those things in a logical context, epistemology should be prior to it. Noone is denying those things are there before we even use language, but to understand those things, an epistemological standard is crucial CRITERIA. (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
In other words, do not conflate things that "are" with a humans ability to understand those things, and the importance of an epistemologal standard in which to apply TO understanding those things logically.
Thanks,
Trick
trick0171 2 years ago
ontology is logically prior. epistemology is inherently in the realm of the abstract. but for example you can create abstract, logically coherent systems in math that have absolutely nothing to do with reality, with the ontos. if one puts the cart of perception before what constitutes it one is constantly vurnerable to then transgress into ontological proofs that rationalize gods.
jogayot 2 years ago
"ontology is logically prior"
You are doing the very same thing as the professor here. You are defining ontology as "being" or "existence" instead of the "study and understanding of being or existence". To be able to study/understand, we should use logic and we need to be able to obtain some form of knowledge ABOUT existence to do so. What I am saying is, we should look at the criteria used for obtaining such knowledge (which is epistemology) first.
trick0171 2 years ago
sure, and you are artificially separating the totality into studing and studied.
of course there is no being or even study of being without knowledge... in this way the question of what it is that is outside of universe becomes meaningless on the basis of physical impossibility of reaching it.
but, to use extreme case, one does not reject or accept god on the basis of epistemological argument but ontology one prescribes to. think why it is so hard to unconvince theists...
jogayot 2 years ago
i'm convinced that it's exactly because ontology is logically prior. on the other hand i won't deny that the best way to reach them is by modifying their epistemology.
jogayot 2 years ago
"artificially separating the totality into studing and studied."
This is what ontology is. Ontology is a subject matter.
My epistemological standards are an important factor in my rejection of a god concept, and they precede the logic I use to conclude the ontology for the rejection.
Keep in mind that I am not saying people don't come to ontological conclusions prior to epistemology. I am just saying it is an illogical way to do so.
trick0171 2 years ago
To simply what I am saying:
The study of knowledge should precede any other study in which knowledge of something is needed for that study. Ontology is the study of the nature of "being, existence or reality", in which we need to "know" things to study. If we do not apply a standard of epistemology first, we assume "knowledge" without a consistent standard for it. Hope this clears things up. :)
trick0171 2 years ago
"To *simplify what I am saying..." <--correction.
trick0171 2 years ago
Not really, for knowledge relations ARE only one kind of relation that people maintain with the world. Claims to knowledge, and truth conditions, emerge after one has learned to operate in the world at a silent level.
Is there an epistemology of the silent infant (infant means without speech)? Is learning to stand, walk, or even speak true or false? Or simply actualized or not?
Is it not interesting that people emerge to self-awareness only AFTER having already started their being?
Professoranton 2 years ago
Again, you are defining Ontology as what "is", instead of subject matter thought about. The baby example is a good one. I don't think any baby is addressing Ontology (or Epistemology for that matter). You are confusing what "is" with the word Ontology, instead of it being a SUBJECT for people to try to understand using a methodology such as logic (in which we try to figure out that "is" for example). (MORE)
trick0171 2 years ago
There is a huge distinction between the "being of an infant" and the "subject of the being of an infant in which we address in philosophy". The latter is Ontology.
Thanks.
trick0171 2 years ago
"Hope this clears things up."
look. even the logic you employ in your "studies" whether it be the being or its perception is already a given. can a syllogism be other way than it is? perhaps it could. in a different universe. but it's not the matter of epistemology but ontology. period.
jogayot 2 years ago
@jogayot
I am just clearing up what it means to address Ontology, and why addressing Epistemology should precede it. It is not may fault if you conflate Ontology with "being". Your conflation if Ontology is like conflating Epistemology with having "knowledge", when it really is concerned with obtaining a theory OF knowledge (the nature and scope). It is an important distinction that is being overlooked.
trick0171 2 years ago
no, you are just hiding behind dictionary definitions. if i were to do the same then i'd have to tell you that only true theory of being is physics. and even if its only source of truth is experiment and experience the end of its ultimate investigation are transcendental laws that are at the base of those perceptions. words used to communicate can be discarded after you get the message the same way epistemology is merely superfluous element of ontology. (cont.)
jogayot 2 years ago
the core of philosophy is not "do i know or not know" but "to be or not to be".
jogayot 2 years ago
@jogayot
Sorry, but I really could not parse what you are saying as soon as you talk about "transcendental laws" and "words being discarded" for this discussion. Also not really sure why you think "to be or not to be" is the core of philosophy, or why you think we can conclude "to be or not to be" without knowledge.
trick0171 2 years ago
well, does any physics or math law have anything to do with epistemology? does it matter if we write one as "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" or "2+a ^ 3+a & 4+a"? symbols can be discarded! true, we cannot conclude anything without knowledge, but the question "to be or not to be" is beyond knowledge. knowledge comes from within being. of course in a way it's a matter of "chicken or egg" perspective. but you can not seriously imply that epistemology we choose has any bearing on the shape of the world as it is.
jogayot 2 years ago
"physics or math law"
Why are these being brought up?
"knowledge comes from within being"
If you think this, then this IS an epistemological standard you are applying (one that I think would need to be addressed prior to ontological analysis).
And what does bearing on the shape of the world have anything to do with our discussion. Sorry, but it would be better if we stay on topic.
trick0171 2 years ago
it is on topic. what is the point of this discussion or any other philosophical debate if not attainment of the truth in the shape of laws governing the world? i'm trying to show you that epistemology even though we are forced to consider it first due to perceptual split into subject and object is really secondary. it has no bearing on the world as it is. it can be completely arbitrary as i pointed out in my first comment in this thread. abstract is as significant as the empirical. with (cont.)
jogayot 2 years ago
any given epistemology at the worst we'll be totally confused, at best we'll gain better picture of reality. but then it would indeed imply that epistemology is forced on us by the universe, so it can not be that epistemology is primal. it would rather imply that being is a condition for epistemology and so ontology, whether we define it as mere study of being or being itself, comes before any framework about knowledge. on a more humanistic level there is a question of what is the (cont.)
jogayot 2 years ago
motivation behind all our investigations? do we philosophy because we know or because we exist? i'm not denying that epistemology is important part of philosophy. i'm merely vehemently disagreeing with the fact that it being first part of all our theories is the one, most important part. without tools we'd be nothing, but tools are only means to a goal of improving our lives the same way epistemology is only a tool of discovering nature of being. and in this way i see it more as subset (cont.)
jogayot 2 years ago
of ontology rather than the other way around as you seem to imply.
jogayot 2 years ago
We have to apply a methodology to even have a Philosophical discussion. Epistemology helps focus on what methodologies we should use (which ones are most consistent, reliable, etc) You suggesting that a discussion on Ontology should precede one on Epistemology is basically saying that you don't care what methodology is better for the topic. In that way you can have any Ontology you DESIRE or FEEL and not be held accountable to whether it follows a logical standard.
trick0171 2 years ago
exactly... you also can have any ontology you desire or feel. why is that? isn't that exactly because isness comes before cognition? think about it!
jogayot 2 years ago
My whole argument is not against the fact that you can have an ontology based on what you desire and feel. My whole argument is that it is not logical to do so. It is on the importance of standards, not that one HAS to use them. Glad we (sort of) agree here.
btw - I think "isness" comes before cognition, but our ability to understand or "know" that does not.
trick0171 2 years ago