[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science



My apologies if I caused you puzzlement, Larry.

Formerly, before Hegel, philosophers argued about what it meant to say something existed, whether only sensations existed, or ideal types, or matter, etc., and about the limits to knowledge, whether it was possible to know something which could never be experienced, whether a clear idea was proof of knowledge, etc. These argument went on from ancient times into Hegel's own life time and never reached a conclusion, but Ontology and Epistemology were taught as subjects in the University. Although I think the fashion of referring to these in the plural is from the last few decades, not an invention of Hegel's, Hegel subsumed these "subjects" into his Logic, and never discussed them in singular or plural so far as I can remember, after 1807. Each formation of consciousness (culture if you will) has its own "ontology" and "epistemology," which collapses under internal criticism, as demonstrated in his Logic.,

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 5/09/2015 3:36 PM, lpscholar2@gmail.com wrote:
Andy, Haydi,
I also am puzzling on this topic and reflecting on having the 2x2 grid in hand to help refer to notions of the general, abstract, ontology and epistemology in relation to the idio, singular, specific, unique.

Andy, you suggest Hegel came to realize that both ontology and epistemology are actually PLURAL ontologies and epistemologies that emerge within social formations.
however,
the assumption that with the realization of their plural *character* these concepts then become bankrupt and must be *transcended* leaves me puzzled? why with the realization of both plural ontologies and plural epistemologies actually residing in “beliefs” do we feel compelled to transcend or go beyond the plural character of ontologies and epistemologies.

in other words, using the 4 quadrants in a 2x2 grid as a guide is it not possible to acknowledge the “adequacy” of each quadrant as expressing a particular character of our pluralistic ontologies and epistemologies and each having value without the necessity of reducing one quadrant to be derivative of the other quadrant. Mike and Peg explored the metaphor of “amplification” and is it possible that to amplify any particular quadrant gives that quadrant more “power” but the ensemble structurally remains the same. To re-organize the conventional relational pattern into novel arrangements of the 4 quadrants (with the quadrants in hand) may be the way new “third spaces” open new ontologies and epistemologies within social formations. the “goal” remains the same [opening third s/places] but the relational patterning of the quadrants remains plural.

if I am making links that don’t make sense and not expressing a legitimate knowledge [too idio in formation] just ignore. I was reflecting on William James notion of a pluralistic world of beliefs.
Larry





Sent from Windows Mail

*From:* ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
*Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎4‎, ‎2015 ‎5‎:‎28‎ ‎PM
*To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>

Haydi, on the question of ontology and epistemology ...
Ontology is the study of being. That does not mean that it
is concerned only with independently existing entities. It
is the study of what forms of being there are, such as
"thoughts". In recent decades this has come to mean a person
or a culture's belief in the array of different entities
that may be talked of, e.g. gods, classes or individuals, so
it is an aspect of cultural difference.
Epistemology is the study of knowing, in particular the
limits and validity of knowledge. It is not necessarily a
study of reflection. In recent decades it has comes to mean
a person or a culture's beliefs about the legitimate sources
of knowledge, e.g. priests, books or experience, etc.
It was Hegel who first proposed that these sciences were
bankrupt and should be transcended, because every social
formation had its own integral "epistemology" and "ontology"
and there was no final answer to the question these sciences
proposed, so Hegel's view leads us to the modern way of
talking about epistemologies and ontologies in the plural
and aspects of a way of thinking and acting in the world.
Hegel's Ontology is the first Book of the Logic, and I can
see a sense in which you could say that the Second Book is
about epistemology, but I don't think this is accurate.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 5/09/2015 7:08 AM, ‪Haydi Zulfei‬ ‪ wrote:
> P.S. Many a time I've made efforts , asked others , to differentiate between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY ; yet I've stayed on the same spot . First thesis of Feuerbach tells us if it's the case that we imagine / conceive the objects there to themselves without any wrestling on our part to get involved with them , then science / genuine materialism would not present any meaning to us . All things arise from the wrestling and the involvement . On this point , too , in either case , our work and thinking power are involved except that with ontology , we try to conceive things as existent and trace them as external transformables in themselves while with epistemology we deal with the pertaining ideas as reflexions . Then , in the natural and physical sciences , by concrete we mean "of matter" , corporeal , while in philosophy and gnoseology which is the province of the second of our division , knowledge , concrete , of necessity , would mean conceptual , the highest and most valued categorial philosophical term .
> In what ways am I completely mistaken ?
> Best
> Haydi
>
>