I've developed an interest in philosophy, but I'm still struggling with what seems like a really basic distinction and it's driving me nuts: between ontology and epistemology.
Ontology: >"What can be said to exist?" >Access to reality >Theory of forms
Epistemology: >"What can we know?" >Access to knowledge >Thing in itself
How do these questions belong in two different disciplines? Which discipline is "prior" to the other? While they're not exactly the same, I find it hard to understand the important difference between them.
For instance: Kants thing in itself and the distinction between noumena and phenomena are considered as part of his epistemology, while Platos forms as the most accurate reality is considered ontology?
>interest in philosophy Learn woodworking or gold instead
Colton Nguyen
*golf
Anthony Powell
Spotted the American
Caleb Jenkins
Wrong board, sir.
Benjamin Diaz
No really, studying philosophy is a fucking miserable way to spend your time. You will become unbearable to be around, and you will develop an empty feeling inside that can only be filled with more sophistry. If you want to improve your mind, body and soul, learn how to build a nice chair.
Luke Taylor
>noumenon Read Plato, Aristotle. Then read anything you want but don't skip these guys in this order: Kant->Nietzsche
Sebastian Sullivan
Ontology is a bit odd to me, but from what I more or less accurate. It's an attempt to form a basis or a neutral observation of what you know in an attempt to find flaws or strength. I could be wrong though.
Epistemology, as I know it, is more along the lines of cataloguing what you know. I see it differently from ontology because this is more of a process of seeing what you know vs seeing if it's valid or not.
I could be completely wrong though.
I think both help you "unlock" reality and the truth.
Lucas Jackson
Epistemology is the critic of ontology, is the first thing that comes to my mind, but you have to know that some things exist to make a critical approach to ontology itself otherwise you couldn´t criticize a thing, because of the lack of premises as standards, for example >A book is good if it is X. >This book is X >Thus this book is good.
Next thing that comes to my mind is that epistemology is a meta-ontology, because it is trying to make an ontology about the processes that make an ontology, which seems a bit weird to me.
Lucas Ramirez
>You will become unbearable to be around
Yeah, but what if you got autism and don´t care if others don´t want to be around you?
>and you will develop an empty feeling inside that can only be filled with more sophistry.
You should learn the difference between philosophy and sophistry.
Aiden Morgan
Y'all peoples in this here thread need to learn about the real meaning of epistemology.
Epistemology And metaphysics are two different areas of philosophy.
Ontology is part of epistemology.
Though i've heard of ontological arguments being used through out all branches of philosophy. But epistemological arguments are only about the nature of knowledge. So you can have ontological arguments in epistemology
But you cant have epistemological arguments in ontology.
I think becuase of the assumption that if something exists there must be some way to know about it.
Eli Russell
I ment to say ontology is part of metaphysics
Colton Parker
>reddit spacing you definitely have autism bud >difference between philosophy and sophistry there isn't one m8, that's the truth
Nathan Brooks
>you definitely have autism bud
Yeah probably, but no doc has diagnosed it yet, because i don´t go to them.
>difference between philosophy and sophistry
Sophistry is using arguments with flaws and don´t care about it. Philosophy is the way to flawless arguments, being so sceptical that every argument must be checked if there are flaws in it.
Luke Powell
They are often used as synonyms.
Chase Rogers
epistemologame esta fag
Elijah Flores
Whether you see the noumenal/phenomenal distinction as epistemological or ontological depends on your interpretation of Kant.
For a long time his theory was seen as a metaphysical one, about how the world really is, making phenomena/noumena ontological. But more recently it's been viewed as an epistemological theory—phenomenal objects are just noumenal objects *as they can be known by us*.
Otherwise you've basically got it right. Epistemology focuses on the subject and his capacity for knowledge, ontology describes one's account of what is or exists.
Another source of confusion could be that epistemology is a specific field of ontology, where ontology refers more to just a particular view of what exists.
Alexander Wright
>gold!
Joshua Thompson
>But you cant have epistemological arguments in ontology. I think becuase of the assumption that if something exists there must be some way to know about it.
This assumption seems backwards to me. To say anything about what exists, shouldn't we first figure out the epistemological groundwork needed to discuss existence? This seems to be the approach of someone like Kant as well, he's trying to figure how we can have metaphysics, and what kind of knowledge metaphysical knowledge is - synthetic a priori.
>interpretation of Kant
Thanks, this is is helpful. I've always thought of the critique of pure reason as epistemology.
Mason James
>Which discipline is "prior" to the other? The truth is that there's no one satisfying answer, and when you think you've come across one, like Kant, you'll read somebody like Heidegger who will turn your world upside down by arguing convincingly that what you know is determined by the ontological structures of reality, which you navigate thanks to your pre-ontological immersion in reality, a kind of argument that resembles Plato's theory of knowledge in the Socratic dialogue of Meno.
