Seriously how do you define the terms “ontology” and “epistemology”? I still can’t get it after reading Parmenides, Plato and Kant.
>>24881254F I L T E R E DILTERED
>>24881254>go to island>native sees a rabbit and announces in his language>"gavagai!">is the rabbit a gavagai? That word could mean anything!>catch rabbit>point to rabbit>"gavagai?">native nods yesMy ontology was correctHow do I know?He confirmed it.
>>24881254I think you might be unironically retarded OP
>>24881254Uhhhh bro... FILTERED MUCH LIL STUPID ASS
>>24881254My nigga is you dumb
>>24881254The people calling you retarded are not as clever as they think. I can't define them either on any level that transcends grammatical fiction.
Ontology>the nature of beingEpistemology>the origin of knowledge
If you start with epistemology you are begging the question.Inherent knowledge or inherent capacity to know is presupposed at every level, whether meta or not.Ergo ontology/metaphysics is first because that there is a system/logic/some consistent nature to reality is imbedded in the possibility of asking or doubting or asserting anything.
>>24881315>How do I know?>He confirmed it.nodding can mean anything else than what you think it means
>>24881254Epistemeology is the knowledge of how you get knowledge ie in Plato it is Anamnesis focused. In Descartes it centers on InnatismOntology is stricy speaking nature of Being so it may as well be entire works as whole.
>>24882171Epistemology is the metaphysics of 'how do we know' and 'what is it to know'Naturally this begs the question that you don't know knowledge or don't know what knowing knowing is like—which requires that you know what not knowing is like
>>24881254it is really simple...ontology is the study of everything that is... but in a way that you look for the highest principles and causesepistemology is the study of how we can know things... how do we gain knowledge and what can we knowmetaphysics is both... ontology and epistemology in one big theory... that is probably why you got confused
>>24881254Epistemology is the structure of our knowledge, what it is, how we get it, how we can be certain, etc.Ontology is the structure of what 'is', what exists, has being. what that means, how it comes to be. A very big part fundamentally of what philosophy is trying to do has been to unify, bridge or equate the two fields somehow, to access Being through thought. So it makes sense that its hard to draw exact borders between the two. Kant's main contention is that everything philosophy has traditionally been considered features of ontology are actually just features of epistemology, with Being itself remaining inaccessible.
>>24882171>Inherent knowledge or inherent capacity to know is presupposed at every level, whether meta or not. What about Inherent Vice?
>>24882214Vice exists in a duality that also presupposes guilt which presupposes self-awareness and free will which presupposes knowledge.There's no such thing as vice or evil in monism and/or determinism, if solipsism is true then they're just your delusions of an external injunction that's just yourself
>>24882219That is, vice assumes you can be in state of intent that is bad and that you can will yourself out of it. If you can't then vice is just what you are, and you're not responsible nor can you change it, and it makes no sense to call it good or bad.
>>24881254This is the only thing you have to or should read, just to be in the loop when someone more interested mentions him
>>24882219>if solipsism is trueIt clearly is.
>>24882276>I don't have a proof that others exist >therefore, others don't existOne of the most fallacious conclusions in the history of philosophy. But I have to confess that when I got interested in philosophy, the idea of solipsism was kinda seductive and eye opening, and helped me to wake up from naive realism.
>>24882276If solipsism is true there's no reason you wouldn't be able to will the reality of other concrete selfs, and didn't do this an infinite time ago
>>24881254Off the top of my head, epistemology is concerned with the category of knowledge. Ontology is concerned with the category of being. If I'm confused about the definition of a word or don't know it I just look it up. Everyone has a smartphone or computer, at least you do, as evidence by your post, so just use it.
>>24881254Every Anon calling OP filtered and dumb must drop their own definition and let us judge what you really know.
>>24882311>I have proof>I don't have proof>I...very interesting
>>24882237Recently bought this one.
>>24881254>I still can’t get it after reading Parmenides, Plato and Kant.first of all your reading doesn't make sense. pre socratic parmindes (who writes about a very specialized subfield of ontology), plato (which texts?), and fucking Kant.brother you read plato and then you read aristotle IF you *WANT* to start with the greeksotherwise you read descartes and really understand what he does and why it's maybe not quite cooked. then you might want to try and read leibniz or spinoza. and then you read hume and kant. but you can actually cut out everyone after descartes and just jump to kant. but after you read kant you definitely have you read Fichte and then and only then early Schelling followed by Hegel Enzyclopedia. do not read the phenomenology first. hegel lost a bet and had to write a terrible introduction to an early draft of his system: that is the phenomenology. after you've read transcendental philosophy and german idealism, and you haven't read the greeks, you go back to the greeks - even if you read them, actually. and you focus specially on aristotle. now, you should've read aristotle's metaphysics while reading kant, too. that's just a given and he directly quotes aristotle, actually.now, after you've finished that you need to realize that with hegel project he comes in a time where natural sciences are developing and quickly becoming the dominant method of proofing and proving substance and accidents in the sciences. in simpler terms: natural sciences become dominant over what's come before, such as philosophy, which encompassed all the other social and geisteswissenschaften as we now call them and even such subjects such as law. kant famously divided between besitz and eigentum in the metaphysik der sitten, which is pretty standard in law these days and one of the absolute basics, and founded this division in his transcendental method. okay, so after you've understood the beginning modernity as know it with philosophy still important but natural sciences competing and especially mathematics and physics starting to explain the world to such a thorough degree that the onolgoy, the science of being, has to change drastically and the transcendental method kant developed is no longer tennable. you should look at some basic logic, you should look at pre phenomenological thought as well as early language philosophy and psychology just summaries and then read husserl followed by heidegger. after that you're equipped to handle everything else up to modernity. people like say deleuze heavily work with psycho analysis and lacan and these other minor figures and you'll have to read them while reading about them, but that's not new and can't really be canonized the same this development of philosophy on the continent from kant to husserl can be. say if you're reading the metaphysik der sitten you'll have to have read locke, but when you're reading the KrV you should probably know descartes and hume as rationalists and empiricists.
>>24881692>I can't define them either on any level that transcends grammatical fiction.That doesn’t sound nearly as smart as you think it does, pseud anon.
