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

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

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 Blunden*
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 ?