Begin with Ontology, Please

This is a response to a recent comment that epistemology comes before ontology, to which I poetically disagree.

I thank Electronic Phone for the following link
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978475

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Ontology
• Epistemology
• Axiology
• Philosophy
• Heidegger
• Sartre
• Merlea-Ponty
• Phenomenology
• Existentialism

[MustNotRead]

lol, i'm building my own ontology and epistemolgy logic for an AI system in computer science. humans all kill!

[natedaug1]

"I think therefore I am," is epistemologically sound and logically sound, but how does one explain what it means to experience suffering or angst?  Does being angry or afraid make epistemological sense or can we only understand it through human existence. Kierkeggard was a great and amazing philosopher, who really expanded the debate, past cartesianism and Hegelianism. Really great video, nice job.

[natedaug1]

I think Cartesianism goes wrong when it says epistemology is before ontology.

[JimmySerpent]

Ontology preceeds every'thing', you have no knowledge of any'thing' without prior knowledge of said 'thing', this correlates with what Heidegger explains as historicity.

[dhRzztt]

I like the idea that the will to know is distinct from the will to BE with THAT which is worthy o f thought. With this distinction in mind I tend to think you are correct in that the latter can only be expressed poetically rather than with a description of kmowledgable fact.

[Israe5l]

Think there might be four branches. Epistemology and Ontology. Aesthetics and ethics.

And the tention works out that epistemology/ontology works out the dualism of objectivity/subjectivity. While the aesthetics/ethics works our the dualism of monism.

But the triad is always appealing.

[Israe5l]

There are buildings. Cars. TVs. Clothes. Money. Books. Music players. what else? Its kind of interesting to put it in those terms. how do we relate to things?

[Israe5l]

So, professor, answer me this question. Do you believe there are countable number of objects in the world (such as natural numbers, or rational numbers) or uncountable number of objects (such as the real numbers) in the world. One must answer that before going to hunt for ontology. (I am already set. A philosopher must acept that there are countable number of objects. If you don't you are really a physicist.)

As for the terminalogy: countable / uncountable, look it up with "infinity".

[Israe5l]

I think Ontology comes first. But not what you think expect: One, Two, Three,. Infinity.

"Natural numbers are given from God."