|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 4, 2006 10:44
How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>slightest bit of sense!
>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
.>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
|
| | 26 Comments |
|
|
Author: tgtg Date: Dec 4, 2006 11:07
chazwin wrote:
> How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>
>>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>>slightest bit of sense!
>>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
> .>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
>
> Certain members o fthe group attempt to attack arguments becasue they
> derive from another branch of philosophy. In this, I beleive they try
> to "blind with science" anyone who is not perfectly clear on these
> distinctions. This is a false and dishonourable process. It is no
> different from a politician rejecting evidence on the environment
> because it comes from a scientist rather than a politician.
> On what basis can we make the slightest valid ontological claim without
> understanding the basis for our knowledge? Metaphysics, aesthetics, ...
|
| Show full article (1.51Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 4, 2006 11:12
tg wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
>> How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>>
>>>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>>>slightest bit of sense!
>>>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>>>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
>> .>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>>>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
>>
>> Certain members o fthe group attempt to attack arguments becasue they
>> derive from another branch of philosophy. In this, I beleive they try
>> to "blind with science" anyone who is not perfectly clear on these
>> distinctions. This is a false and dishonourable process. It is no
>> different from a politician rejecting evidence on the environment
>> because it comes from a scientist rather than a politician.
>> On what basis can we make the slightest valid ontological claim without ...
|
| Show full article (1.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Dec 4, 2006 11:43
chazwin wrote:
> How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>
>>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>>slightest bit of sense!
>>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
> .>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
>
> Certain members o fthe group attempt to attack arguments becasue they
> derive from another branch of philosophy. In this, I beleive they try
> to "blind with science" anyone who is not perfectly clear on these
> distinctions. This is a false and dishonourable process. It is no
> different from a politician rejecting evidence on the environment
> because it comes from a scientist rather than a politician.
> On what basis can we make the slightest valid ontological claim without
> understanding the basis for our knowledge? Metaphysics, aesthetics, ...
|
| Show full article (2.51Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Brian FletcherBrian Fletcher Date: Dec 4, 2006 16:06
> How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>
>>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>>slightest bit of sense!
>>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
> .>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
>
> Certain members o fthe group attempt to attack arguments becasue they
> derive from another branch of philosophy. In this, I beleive they try
> to "blind with science" anyone who is not perfectly clear on these
> distinctions. This is a false and dishonourable process. It is no
> different from a politician rejecting evidence on the environment
> because it comes from a scientist rather than a politician.
> On what basis can we make the slightest valid ontological claim without ...
|
| Show full article (1.82Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 4, 2006 16:06
Brian Fletcher wrote:
>> How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>>
>>>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>>>slightest bit of sense!
>>>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>>>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
>> .>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>>>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
>>
>> Certain members o fthe group attempt to attack arguments becasue they
>> derive from another branch of philosophy. In this, I beleive they try
>> to "blind with science" anyone who is not perfectly clear on these
>> distinctions. This is a false and dishonourable process. It is no
>> different from a politician rejecting evidence on the environment
>> because it comes from a scientist rather than a politician. ...
|
| Show full article (2.44Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 5, 2006 00:40
Citizen Bob wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 11:12:21 -0800, "chazwin" yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I'm glad someone is watching. I do not mean necessary in the
>>philosophical way, but in terms of praxis. One simply cannot do any
>>useful ontology unless one has asessed, with clear awareness of ones
>>epistmeology, the knowledge upon which you make ontological claims.
>
> So the Laws of Science are fundamentally dependent on this "clear
> awareness of epistemology".
DUH!!!
Hello ??? Is there anybody out there???
Being, existing, living, having awareness are not dependant on
ONTOLOGY.
Just like knowledge is not dependant on EPISTMEOLOGY.
HEY, "black and white" thinker it is the other way round.
Epistemology is a philosophy OF knowledge just as ontology is the
philosophy OF existence.
|
| Show full article (0.86Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 5, 2006 00:54
Brian Fletcher wrote:
>>
>> Brian Fletcher wrote:
>>>> How many times do you hear this kind of argument?
>>>>
>>>>>>> The jury is out because you are trying to impose Epistemology on
>>>>>>> issues that are Ontological in nature.
>>>>>>I am not trying to impose anything of the sort. You are not making the
>>>>>>slightest bit of sense!
>>>>>>The qustions of Hume and Kant are all about the basis for knowledge.
>>>>>And that is Epistemological, which has nothing substantive to do with
>>>> .>Ontology. Hume and Kant are irrelevant for Ontology. Their
>>>>>introduction into Ontological propositions is a straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Certain members o fthe group attempt to attack arguments becasue they
>>>> derive from another branch of philosophy. In this, I beleive they try ...
|
| Show full article (4.24Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: lawreylawrey Date: Dec 5, 2006 02:22
chazwin wrote:
> Brian Fletcher wrote:
>>>
>>> Brian Fletcher wrote:
>>>> "chazwin"
|
| Show full article (5.28Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Dec 5, 2006 02:57
to Lawrey,
My original argument was that I often find that when
discussing ontological questions people (myself and others) use their
epistemological tecniques to help solve problems. I have been lambasted
for that because I "can't use epistmeology to answer ontological
questions", it is said (Gordge, bob, and brian). I beleive this is
utterly false. As how else are we to test the validity of ontological
positions if we do not use knowledge and with it an understnding of how
knowledge has been derived?
In positing an important praxically necessary link between the two
disciplines others (Bob and Brian) have rejected my claim by saying
that "i do it (ontology) everyday", and thus need no epistmeology. I
reject this claim by saying that doing ontology is more that just being
alive, just as doing epistmeology is more than just knowing anything.
These are philosophical sub-disciplines that require active conscious
engagement. Knowing and being is not the same as doing epistmology and
ontology.
Brian and to a lesser extent Bob have both attacked this, reasonable,
postion ,thus giving us all an insight into the means by which these
individuals do business in philosophy: failing to draw a distinction ...
|
| Show full article (6.92Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
