What I understand from what I have studied about Ontology and Epistemology is that Ontology is knowing the reality. This reality can also be something that we are going to prove or our view point towards the reality. Whereas Epistemology is the study of how can we prove the view point or carry out the study in order to prove our view point which will contribute towards reality.
Anyone please tell me if I am right about the two philosophical divisions?
Ontology is what reality actually is, while epistemology is what we (perceive and) describe reality to be.
Obviously they are different, since our ability to gain knowledge and ability to describe are pretty limited by our human condition.
Probably one can say that ontology of reality does not admit of any description, since it then becomes its epistemology.
We have to be content with epistemology FAPP, although we may extrapolate it to ontology, without much confidence in the finality of the observations.
The story of the two guys, onto- and epi-, is long, since Socrates. It's like nails and hammer. If you focus on the hammer (epi-...) everything (onto-) looks like a nail. If you focus on the nails, you can go searching for some nails which can act as a hammer. Both can be claimed to exist as real, both can be claimed to work as a knowledge-device: you can think of any representation as an interaction and any interaction as an informational procedure. Of course, narrow-minded philosophers and historians of philosophy prefer to tell an easier romance of fight for power. Some years ago, I introduced the term "ipostemology", from the Greek "hypo" (under, below), to tell another story.
Ontology is the philosophical field revolving around (the study of) the nature of reality (all that is or exists), and the different entities and categories within reality.
Epistemology is the philosophical field revolving around (the study of) knowledge and how to reach it. One might say that it includes the ontology of knowledge.
Examples of theories within the field of ontology are: ontological monism, pluralism, idealism, materialism, dualism, etc.
Examples of theories within the field of epistemology are: realism, relativism, rationalism, irrationalism, etc.
Yes, my understanding is consistent with Titus' response. As an additional aid to understanding the concept of "ontology" as it is used in the KM field, a number of years ago (when developing the first Taxonomy for US Federal sector as the Chief Knowledge Officer), one of my colleagues wrote a paper for me to use and distribute which helps show the relationship discussed in this thread ... and it differentiates ontologies and taxonomies. The paper is titled "Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies. It has been included as a resource in many of the KM toolkits we have done for the Federal sector (which means it is in the public domain and can be shared freely, with reference to the authors). I think you will find this interesting and informative.
P.S. Just uploaded our newest book available for download on this site (The Course of Knowledge: A 21st Century Theory)
As other respondents have stated, ontology is the study of what there is, including what is possible; while epistemology concerns knowledge--what constitutes knowledge, how we obtain it, etc. Let me add that rather surprisingly these two domains are often confounded. Here is an example: Consciousness, the ontological state of being conscious, is confounded with the epistemological condition of knowing that one is conscious. The latter, reflective or second order consciousness, is not necessary for being conscious as a first order state.
Dear Linda, you are completely right about the confusion of ontology and epistemology in the traditional concept of Consciousness (from Modern philosophy, with Platonic influences). For this reason, contemporary researchers (including myself) have argued for a first order concept of consciousness that is not dependent on cognition (the "condition of knowing", as you wrote). In my philosophical theory "Triple-Aspect Monism", I identify consciousness with the presence of feelings, which are understood as states of the conscious being, while cognitive processes (leading to the construction of representations, maps, symbols) are conceived as intermediating the conscious being with external objects and processes (IOW, they are not apprehensions of the state of the being, but apprehensions of the state of external objects and processes).
Ontology is about being. It focuses on the logical types or categories of beings. Epistemology is about knowing. It focuses on the perceptions, methods, and thought processes that result in knowledge. The table I am conscious of belongs to ontology; my knowledge of it belongs to epistemology. Though knowledge of a being or object is itself a state of being and can be an object of knowledge, a being is not always itself a state or object of knowledge. So, the two ought not to be confounded.
Well, Ontology and Epistemology are major branches in philosophy. Ontology is basically dealing with the ultimate nature of the universe. In other words it is an inquiry about the true nature of reality which is connected with becoming, existence and destruction of the world nature. Epistemology is the way how to deal with the above issues. Here, we are trying to provide justifications to the knowledge obtain through our sense perception on that true nature.
Wide range of issues comes up with both concepts. Arguments can be found for and against of the issues. However, it is difficult to say that we are able to reach the true nature of the world through our sense experience due to limitations of our perception and the language we express our knowledge of the world.
The ancient Greek roots of the two words provide a useful way to differentiate them. Epistemology comes from the Greek ἐπιστήμη (episteme) which means "knowledge" hence it is the study of knowledge. Ontology comes from the participle ὤν (on) of the Greek verb "to be" (inf. εἶναι, einai). Since Greek is an inflected language, sometimes participles change their form depending upon how they are used. The root comes from the genitive (similar in use to the English possessive). The genitive is ὄντος, so the root is ὀντ- (ont). The participle sometimes used by Greek philosophers as a substantive for the concept of "being". Thus ontology is the study of being.
Both of these epistemology and ontology have long histories in Greek philosophy. For example, Plato's Theaetetus contains the standard definition of knowledge still used in epistemology today. Ontology comes up notably in Plato's Parmenides.
Burrell & Morgan (1979) named epistemology, ontology, human nature and methodology as philosophical assumptions.
Slevitch (2011) states that ontology (onto in Greek ‘being’ and logia ‘science, study, theory’) can be defined as the study of reality or things that comprise reality. The view of Guba & Lincoln, (1994) is that the ontological consideration is what is the form and nature of reality and therefore, what can be known about it is “how things really are” and “how things really work”.
According to Bryman & Bell (2013) an epistemological issue concerns the question of what is (or should be) regarded as acceptable knowledge in a discipline. They also state that a particularly central issue in this context is the question of whether or not the social world can and should be studied according to the same principles, procedures and ethos as the natural sciences.
Meanwhile Allison & Hobbs (2006) mention that ontological consideration is about “What is the nature of the knowable, or what is the nature of reality?” and the epistemological consideration is about “What is the nature of the relationship between the knower (the inquirer) and the known (or knowledge)?”
References
Allison, H.E. and Hobbs, R.J., 2006. Science and policy in natural resource management: Understanding system complexity. Cambridge University Press.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Elements of the sociology of corporate life.
Slevitch, L., 2011. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12(1), pp.73-81.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S., 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2(163-194), p.105.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E., 2011. Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Good day everyone,
I have this short work to submit as part of practising our understanding of ontology, epistemology and methodology – the subject is teenagers dropout of school, and it is asked that I provide in a short paragraph an example of an ontological approach/statement on 'teenagers dropout of school', another such paragraph for an epistemological approach/statement + a last one on a possible methodology.
I am not very at ease with those principles and therefore would like, as an example, to have someone who could show to me what such answer could possibly look like, should anyone have an idea.
Thank you very much, I have spent too much time on trying to work around the question..in vain and therefore request for help
Kindly
Ontology is the study of what there is in the world. Epistemology is the study of how you know it. Topics in ontology include: What does it mean to be a "thing"?
How do things persist over time?
How do things change over time?
Topics in epistemology include: What does it mean to know something?
What does it mean to mean something?
Do we actually really know anything at all for certain?
Dear Colleagues,
Here is an interesting paper on the subject:
Slevitch L. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies compared: Ontological and epistemological perspectives. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 2012;12(1):73-81. Article Qualitative and Quantitative Methodologies Compared: Ontolog...
Best wishes from Germany,
Martin
The best ancient work on ontology is Aristotle's "Categories." The best modern work is Quine's "On What there is."
"More broadly, at least one other modern Aristotelian, in agreement . . .with Gilson’s principle of co-development of the ontological and epistemological base of philosophy, H. W. B. Joseph, sees the necessary connection between the laws of ontology and the laws of epistemology, when he argues that necessity in logic, a branch of epistemology, is rooted in ontology:"
In other words, unless the primary Laws of Thought were Laws of Things, our thought would be doomed by its very nature to misapprehend the nature of things. – H. W. B Joseph, An Introduction to Logic, p. 13.
From: https://bioperipatetic.com/biocentric-nature-of-consciousness/
Saunders et al., 2015 explain these as:
"Ontology concerns researchers’ assumptions about the nature of the world and reality.Ontological assumptions you make determine what research objects and phenomena you focus on, and how you see and approach them". " Epistemology concerns assumptions about knowledge – how we know what we say we know, what constitutes acceptable, valid and legitimate knowledge, and how we can communicate knowledge to fellow human beings". "Epistemological assumptions you make determines what sort of contribution to knowledge you can make as a result of your research". "Axiology refers to the role of values and ethics within the research process, which incorporates questions about how we, as researchers, deal with our own values and also with those of our research participants".
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research Methods for Business Students (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
to put in simple english...
Ontology is about to prove 'the being' is exist.... let's say you claim A is a problem, So, epistemology is about how do you know (in what ways? - paradigm/perspective). maybe B is a problem, not A. because A does not exist in the first place. Or maybe A does not contribute to the C...
So for me, exploratory research is ontological research, often....
Ontology and Epistemology
The question asked was : What is the difference between ontology and epistemology? The answers offered so far are generally correct, but they do not cut very deep. As noted already, ontology is theory of being, and epistemology is theory of knowledge. But what is this “being” that ontology is a theory of? And what is this “knowledge” that epistemology is a theory of? The answers are not singular and will not be found in philosophy. Rather, the answers are various and found in the special sciences, each of which is a certain kind of knowledge about a specific category of beings—viz., the kind of beings it is knowledge of. Thus, to speak very roughly, mathematics is knowledge of sets, physics is knowledge of the motions of elementary particles, chemistry is knowledge of compounds of these, biology is knowledge of living beings, psychology is knowledge of conscious beings, and sociology is knowledge of societies. Each of these sciences therefore has its own ontology, the distinctive beings it is knowledge of, and each has its own epistemology, the distinctive methods its practitioners use to acquire their special kind of knowledge of these beings. As reflection on the logic of all of the sciences, philosophy has important things to say about each of them, and insofar as it does, it is concerned with their various ontologies and their various epistemologies. However, contrary to widespread belief, there is no branch of philosophy called ontology the job of which is to determine what is real simpliciter; nor is there any called epistemology to say how knowledge of all reality, however conceived, is to be acquired. As always, the job of the philosopher is to be an under laborer in the scientist’s garden.
Ontology - refers to the nature of the reality (i.e. what is reality).
Epistemology - refers to knowing the reality (i.e. How, and what, can we know?), as stated by Sheela Sobana Rani and other folks earlier. There are three components/sources to knowing the reality: Sources of knowledge (Rationalism, Empiricism, Nativism), Content of knowledge (Skepticism, Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism), and Traditions of knowledge (Interpretivism, Objectivism, Pragmatism).
Indeed, Ontology is the study of reality whilst epistemology is associated to what constitutes valid knowledge. Ontology is supported by objectivism, thus has ability to be proven .For example, organisations in which we carry out data collections for our research exists in reality and can thus be proven.
I believe that you are right but not simple enough. To me ontology is the reality and epistomology is an interpretation of observations.
simply we can say: ontology is, what is the reality and epistemology is , what and how can we know about it
Please, lets not be too simple, lest we confuse the word with the thing. Both the word 'epistemology' and the word 'ontology' are from the Greek, and both have as suffix a derivative of the Greek word 'logos,' which means 'word' or 'theory.' The prefix of 'ontology' is a derivative of the word 'ousia,' for being or real thing. The prefix of 'epistemology' comes from 'episteme,' for knowledge. So, ontology is not itself reality; it is theory of, or words about, reality. Epistemology is not itself knowledge or interpretations; it is theory of, or words about, knowledge and interpretations.
Can some help me understand the use of the two terms in this discussion - “ There is a great difference between the claim that Jesus is not epistemologically necessary for salvation(inclusivity view) and the claim that Jesus is not ontologically necessary for salvation (Pluralistic view).” I have an understanding of the two terms but in this application.
In layman language, ontology is about the does the subject is exist in the first place, while epistemology is about how we see the subject... how we understand it
David E Jones
The only sense I can make of that badly constructed sentence is either "To be saved, you don't have to believe in Jesus, but he has to exist." Or "To be saved, you have to believe in Jesus, but he does not have to exist." Why anybody would want to say either I cannot fathom.
To the best of mine, Ontology is content /knowledge for finding the reality. Whereas, epistemology is the Pedagogy/method for finding/verifying the content /knowkedge of reality.
Ontology is the study of reality and epistemology is the study of knowledge
Ontology is the study of being, it tries to understand the reality. While, epistemology understand what it means? it provides a background for the legitimate and adequate knowledge.
Ontology is the philosophy about reality
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge i.e. how we know what we know
Ontology is the theory of reality while epistemology is the knowledge or information out there and how it can be utilised to prove reality.
All are good responses. I continue to add my voice. Thank you colleagues
Ontology is the way how do we find the fact i.e. existential fact while epistemology is the way how do we interpret the fact. For instance, Lets take a CHAIR; ontology is to describe it from its construction, its uses, color, etc. while epistemological understanding can be of 'power' 'authority'...
Sharing my notes from Guba and Lincoln's Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.
With respect to explaining paradigm, they elborate it as a "Basic Belief System based on Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Assumptions" where:
Ontology - What is there that can be known about it? Concerning matters of aesthetic, moral significance fall outside the realm of legitimate scientific inquiry.
Epistemology - The study of knowing the acquisition of knowledge, relationship between knower and what can be known. (knower would be known)
Methodology - How can the inquirer (would be knower) go about finding out whatever he believes can be known.
I am not into the 'what is..' version of this question. It invites a definition, and I think the way we define branches of metaphysics is going to depend on the positions we take in metaphysics. Or in other words, answering this question is part of the domain the question is about. I prefer 'When is the difference between ontology and epistemology?' i.e. a question that is more about the context of what I am trying to do and the distinctions between discourses that we draw to support this.
Sharing my notes from The Semantic Turn by Klaus Krippendorf
"Ontology, by definition, is the science of being; more specifically, the construction of a world that is presumed to exist without its observers or constructors. By contrast epistemology is the science of knowing.
An objectivist epistemology studies how the human mind comprehends or accurately represents ontology. A constructivist epistemology, by contrast, studies how humans or members of a community come to understand. Its criterion is not ontology but viability, the ability of knowers to successfully enact their understanding."
Ontology is the attempt to list what is really real, whereas epistemology is the attempt to justify why anyone should consider that list correct.
Ontology is the existence of knowledge while epistemology is about knowing how the knowledge come about or discovered.
Ontology is a fancy term uses about your beliefs about reality as you said " our view point about reality". Like if you consider evil as a reality, then the ontology of evil entails your beliefs about it.. eg. One major beleif is that evil persuades man to commit sin. There r two types of ontology: realism (objective view) and relativism (subjective view). Epistemology means the relationship of a researcher with research. Means, how do we get knowledge or discover new things? Your ontological beleifs will dictate ur epistemological beleifs. If you think reality is out there independent of the observer, your relationship with the study (epistemology) is objective in nature. You will rely on data, or empirical study.
I am going to study about the effectiveness of social security programs on social wellbeing... Can anyone suggest me what will be of my ontological and epistemological stance? as example...
Absolutely correct. Ontology is the essence ...the 'thing' whereas epistemology is the way of knowing...
Ontology:
Ontology examines the Nature of reality
It is interested in addressing the question “what is reality?”.
For eg.
Epistemology:
Epistemology examines how you can examine reality.
It refers to how an individual understands knowledge, how they understand their thinking process, and how they think others know. It addresses the question “How can i know reality?”
For eg.
Ontology:Ontology examines the Nature of realityIt is interested in addressing the question “what is reality?”.For eg.
Epistemology:Epistemology examines how you can examine reality.It refers to how an individual understands knowledge, how they understand their thinking process, and how they think others know. It addresses the question “How can i know reality?”For eg.
Both these two words have "ology" which means "a subject of study; a branch of knowledge."
Where the term Ontology deals with truth and on the other hand Epistemology deals with examine of reality.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge or knowing.It is the knowledge to examine reality.
Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of human beings existence as individual, in society and in the universe. It deals abut the reality (truth).
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope or in other words, it is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Ontology is the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being. It focuses on the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain or a particular complex being.
Ontology is the study of what there is in the world. Epistemology is the study of how you know it.
Topics in ontology include:
- What does it mean to be a "thing"?
- How do things persist over time?
- How do things change over time?
Topics in epistemology include:
- What does it mean to know something?
- What does it mean to mean something?
- Do we actually really know anything at all for certain?
Ontology constitutes with the ideology of reality and What we understand or simply what exists.
While epistemology considers the nature of knowledge or how do we understand knowledge.
Epistemology is the knowledge of how understanding ontolgot, ontology is understanding Reality ...
I understand the traditional distinction between epistemology and ontology, so what is "onto-epistemological"? This term seems to be a pomo meta move, but maybe I am missing the movement.
Ontology is to get the knowledge about/understanding what is there, while
epistemology is to understand what is Knowledge
Ontology is what phenomenon exists in our social world; whereas, Epistemology is how we tend to explain/explore reality or phenomenon. So reality exists in this universe (ontology), but how do we explain this reality (epistemology)? This births existence and knowledge. Thus, through our worldview or viewpoints (ontology) on reality, we develop the praxis to explicate (epistemology) our worldview.
Ontology refers to the existence of something - a being, thing or a phenomenon. In research we begin with an ontological position. The researcher locates or believes the existence of something that can be researched. Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge. Epistemology talks about the scope of knowledge on your ontological position. It talks about the researchers methods of knowing, justification, rationality and limitations of acquiring knowledge about the ontological position.
Since ontology and epistemology are inextricably linked, it is evidently difficult to "put on and take off" these research foundations however the research desires. This illustrates the analytical implications of multiple positions and suggests that researchers need a variety of positions in order to account for their chosen approach. However, in terms of the interrelationship between epistemology and methodology, ontological positions are very important, and it may be said that such ontological positions lead to epistemological positions. The foundationalist's values (ontology) serve as a basis for positivist or realist science traditions (epistemology), while the anti-opinions foundationalist's lead to an interpretivist role. This means that all aspects of science are inextricably linked, making it critical to approach these main research blocks as a whole.
The question implies an important relationship between Philosophy and Science ( Metascience ) - Presentation Metaphysics - A duality between physics and philosophy
The current situation, led and marked by Covid-19, has generated an unprecedented growing public interest around a vast series of "problems" and "disputes" within Science itself and in relation to Society, Social Policy and Economic that sees us as "passive protagonists". This situation that we live today has exposed certain fields of scientific discourse to a quite "obsolete" debate, divided between a "disoriented Society" and a consequent devaluation of a Science reduced to a simple instrument of the strategies of Governments that "copy a few to others "in their own, often arbitrary decisions. Consequently, much of the epistemological reflection on the new reality due to Covid-19 and dedicated to understanding the multiplicity and transformations of codes, both "theoretical" and "practical" within scientific knowledge, would run the risk of being lost if A path is not traced with an implementation of the epistemological field, in order to "rebuild" and "reinvent" the necessary conditions for dialogue and overcoming the conflict. It is a "necessary task" to face the pandemic crisis with the appropriate tools. It is necessary to know how to live in its complexity with a "multiple look" (it is not worth saying that I am not from this discipline!) In search of a necessary "heterogenesis" oriented towards "new knowledge" and "new values". The way forward is not easy if we do not put the word "humility" on the table.
Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena
Dear Juana
Even further symptomatology of the current extrication of epistemology from ontology is arising simply from the fact that the politics of the pandemic crisis is turning more and more to the right . . . The discourse is giving leeway to thousands of absolutely non-parametric strays ,,,, ,, , , , ,
Dear Reza Sanaye, It is necessary to know how to live in its complexity with a "multiple look".
The most of posts on the visible page rather clearly answer on the thread’s question “What is the difference between Ontology and Epistemology?” in philosophy, though simply repeat what is written in mainstream philosophical textbooks, whereas this philosophy consists of two different branches; and indeed “Ontology”
“…Ontology refers to the existence of something - a being, thing or a phenomenon. In research we begin with an ontological position…..”
- whereas
“…Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge. Epistemology talks about the scope of knowledge on your ontological position. It talks about the researchers methods of knowing, justification, rationality and limitations of acquiring knowledge about the ontological position….”
However from the definitions above completely evidently it follows that really the mainstream philosophy has rather indirect relation to both - ontology and epistemology; since, in spite of innumerous publications in last at least couple of thousands of years existence of “philosophy”, in both these branches no any rational answers in these branches’ subjects for study are obtained, and so
- the main utmost fundamental ontological “somethings”, i.e. the phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” in the mainstream have numerous different, and mostly opposite, definitions, from what completely evidently follows that all definitions practically for sure are wrong,
- since there can be only one true, and any number of false definitions, as that is in in the mainstream; and really all mainstream doctrines, sub-doctrines, schools, etc., are based on purely transcendent/uncertain/irrational , principally non-provable and so non-disprovable, and so completely equally legitimate in the mainstream, initial basic assumptions about what both the utmost fundamental phenomena/notions/above are.
As well as it looks as completely evident that any attempt to study something can be rational only if before (i) - this something is rationally “ontologically” defined, and (ii) - the question “what is that studies?” , i.e. really what is “Consciousness”?, is answered – which is, again, completely transcendent, etc., in the mainstream.
What are “Matter” and “Consciousness” can be, and is, scientifically defined only in framework of the indeed philosophical Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,
- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, which - the Set - exists absolutely objectively, because of it fundamentally – logically - cannot be non-existent; and so exists eternally, having no Beginning and no End,
- whereas utmost common definition of [also really transcendent in the mainstream, since is defined only as some for some transcendent reason, and by some transcendent way existent phenomenon, which for some transcendent reason, and by some transcendent way is used by transcendent “Consciousness”] the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information” is
“Information is something that is constructed in accordance with the set/system of absolutely fundamental Rules, Possibilities, Quantities, etc. – the set/system “Logos” in the conception”
Correspondingly both, “Matter” and "Consciousness” are absolutely for sure nothing else than some informational systems; and, since both are made from the one stuff “Information”, i.e. in accordance with the same “Logos” elements, it is nothing surprising in that the informational system, which is able to obtain some information about her environment, and to analyze logically the obtained information - “Consciousness”, makes that sometimes adequately to the reality;
- and so, say, the branch “Epistemology” becomes be simply principally superfluous, whereas existent numerous mainstream epistemological “findings”, where really some people, who never made any researches teach real researchers how they must do researches, were and are for scientists even in the official science rather strange, and real scientists never paid and pay any attention to these “fundamental” philosophical publications.
More see about
- what is “Matter” in paper “The Informational Physical Model: Some Fundamental Problems in Physics” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2,
- what is fundamentally different from Matter informational system “Consciousness” in paper “The “Information as Absolute” conception: the consciousness”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26091.18720.
To read SS comments about a number of concrete nuances of consciousness operating in the SS posts in the threads “What is the difference between cell-based consciousness brain-based consciousness?”
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_difference_between_cell-based_consciousness_and_brain-based_consciousness#view=60423807ccb07133222baee7March 5,6,7 and
“What is the difference between cognitive beliefs and feelings?” January 14,16
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-the-difference-between-cognitive-beliefs-and-feelings
- it is useful also, threads aren’t too spammed.
Cheers
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can-someone-explain-the-ontology-and-epistemology-in-simple-way
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-are-the-terms-for-various-ontological-positions-Are-realism-and-relativism-ontological-positions-If-yes-what-do-they-mean
Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena
dear Juana*********** :
complexity with multiple look goes so far as the ruling paradigm of Episteme does not come in clash with our Ontic roots in our historic horizon(s) .. . . .
Almost all of us appear to have lost the way to our own True Self simply because of this very Problematic . .............
Appreciated Dr. Reza Sanaye, on the topic of "path towards our own true being" and with all my best respects, I invite you to read this research paper, thank you:
Chapter "VIA SPIRITUS" [“VIA SPIRIT”] of BERNABÉ DE PALMA (1469-1532...
Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena
Many many thanks for the link , Lady Juana*****
Yours
REZA
The narratology of political ontology today in the disguise of some brands of post-modernism is paving the way for a relatively large number of Zombie Ontics' Quazi-religion . .. .
Regards
REZA
Though that
“……on the topic of "path towards our own true being" and with all my best respects, I invite you to read this research paper, thank you…”
- is addressed to concrete RG member, the problem what is "path towards our own true being"?, relates to much more people, and so looks as being worthwhile commented. Including relating to that is “invited to read”
“…of the greatest Spanish mystics of the 16th century, Bernabé de Palma ..the text of "Via Spiritus"[Via Spirit], published only two months after his death comes to light …which best reflects the Franciscan originality of the 15th-16th century mystic par excellence, proposing a path of perfection for the soul, well structured in four "stages": the stage of what is pure corporeal; the stage of that which is “corporeal spiritual”; the stage of the "pure spiritual" and the supernatural stage, therefore the perspective of the union of the soul with God in which all its lines of research on the "depth of the SOUL" converge.……”
Besides Bernabé de Palma in humans’ history there were large number of humans, who developed some schemes of “paths of perfection for the soul”; first of all that are founders of religions, and many true believers in the religions. Bernabé de Palma is only one among many others; and what he wrote for, say, a Tibetan lama would be rather well known, and experienced, things; the unique essential difference would be in only that catholic mystic Bernabé de Palma the last stage of soul development calls “the union of the soul with God”, whereas lama would in this case say about “Nirvana”; which, in Eastern religions, at least in Buddhism, is claimed as is more high level stage than a Gods’ levels, though.
And, again, the problem "path towards our own true being” was, and is, widely considered in humanity; that is because of is quite natural for humans to have answers on the utmost fundamental questions – what is “a human”? what is the external to humans World? , what is the real place and role of a human in the World?, and there exist or not, and, if exists, then what is, some optimal place and role of concrete human in the World?
Correspondingly these questions historically were firstly answered in religions tens of thousands of years ago, in which [religions] it was postulated that World was created for some transcendent reason, and by some fundamentally transcendent way, by , mostly omniscient, and practically omnipotent, God(s) ; and God(s), also for some transcendent reason and by some fundamentally transcendent way, created humans,
- for whom all what is known that they are mortal, have immortal souls, in their lives must follow some rules, which are established by God(s); and if humans in their lives followed the rules, their souls after death will be placed in good places, souls of those, who violated the rules will be placed in bad places.
At that practically in all religions the main rule is that humans must without any doubts believe in God(s), and in this case God(s) help them in their life, whereas those, who don’t believe, will be punished either at life, or their souls will have serious problems after such human death.
At least near 2500 years ago some people, who weren’t satisfied by religions dogmas, attempted to answer on the questions above rationally, and just so the corresponding science “philosophy” appeared, and further philosophy and religions co-exist in parallel.
At that religions were changing mostly in some “technological” points, i.e., as a rule in some new sects some ceremonies changed, however the primary dogmas remain as they were thousands of years ago as were established by the founders. This thousands of years stability in religions is determined by frank and principal: religions postulate that what is in dogmas is some transcendent knowledge, which cannot be derived by any a human,
- and can be only given for humans by fundamentally transcendent God(s), though Who acts through some people, whom a God(s) chooses for that – the prophets; and so most of religions are as they were at their creations thousands of years ago.
Philosophy attempted to find the rational answers on the questions above, however in the mainstream philosophy corresponding attempts resulted only in appearance of innumerous doctrines, schools, etc., that are based on completely transcendent initial premises, which really in this sense by no means differ from religious dogmas.
That is another thing, that the founders seems mostly frankly, believed – and believe – that they discovered/developed their philosophical findings only as completely rationally derived systems, however that changes nothing in the objective reality: in mainstream philosophy all fundamental phenomena/notions in the questions above, i.e. “human” [“we”, etc.] and “World” are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so really all what mainstream states about “human(s)” and “World” is/are only transcendent mental constructions; which – since it is impossible to state something rational, what would be experimentally testable and rationally analyzable – mostly are constructed by the Great Prophet Lustrog “all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end”.
So mainstream philosophy really doesn’t differ from any religion, and number of doctrines, schools, etc. in the mainstream seems is not lesser than number of sects in religions; including, besides, really mainstream philosophy – completely equally as that religions are – really also is practically in the few thousands of years ago state, and in many cases even literally solves the problems, which were concretized on those times, using argumentation of those times philosophers, etc.
The post is rater long already, so now
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Many thanks for your erudite detailed answer ,,, ....; ; ;;;,;,;, ;;,
If we decide NOT to follow the (hidden) pathway of post-modernism, ie , in case we remain even a little bit more true to Habermas and Enlightenment postulates , I think , we still do recognize that looking back to Tradition (religion & suchlike) cannot be the way forward , , , ,,
Philosophy is still the modern fruit of ontology IF IT IS REALLY FOLLOWED ON AN IMMANENTLY HUMAN PLANE .............
Reza Sanaye,
“…Many thanks for your erudite detailed answer….”
-well, thanks.
Let continue about what is the last SS post above, where we see that real understanding in recent mainstream philosophy and science – what are all really fundamental phenomena/notions are – isn’t an understanding at all, since the “definitions” of all the phenomena/notions in the mainstream are principally nothing else than some transcendent sets of some transcendent wordings,
- and really the recent, modern, postmodern, etc., mainstream doctrines, schools, etc., contain nothing, what would be more rational comparing with what was formulated in Antic times in philosophy, and many thousands of years in religions;
- whereas the one main mainstream doctrine “Idealism” simply by no real means differs from religions, the other one – “Materialism” – by no real means differs also, though is claimed as fundamentally atheistic doctrine; materialists simply don’t understand that they truly believe in completely transcendent for them “Matter”, which is for some completely transcendent reason and by completely transcendent way eternal, omnipotent, and omniscient as most of Gods are .
However official science is claimed as based on Materialism, which excludes dependent on Matter existence of some non-material entity “Consciousness”, and so, say, in official science the phenomenon/notion “Consciousness” is defined mostly as that is a “state of someone”, in which this really transcendent someone feels, thinks, etc.,
- and so official scientists hardly and vividly many tens of years solve “hard”, “easy”, and so on, “mind-body” problems, develop theories of “quanta entanglement orchestras”, etc.; neuroscientists study chemical and physical processes in brain, measuring EM waves and potentials in arbitrary brain points, etc. quite frankly believing that they by this way will answer on the question – so what is this “someone”,
- having at that no any imagination about what are mind, body, brain, etc.
Since – as that is rigorously shown in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [the links see the SS post June 3] - the “consciousness on Earth”, including this consciousness’s version “human’s consciousness”, is absolutely for sure an informational system – an element in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, which fundamentally differs from other the Set’s element “Matter”, and so exists and operates essentially outside Matter in own spacetime, which only partially crosses with Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),
- thus really just religions till now have more rational knowledge about consciousness, when postulate existence of “soul”, and that soul leave material body after the body’s death, etc. – that indeed exists and happens in the objective reality;
- and only religions have some practices – and techniques for experiencing of such practices - of some existence and actions of souls essentially outside practically material bodies; or, more concretely , at existence and interactions with some, other than material, informational patterns/systems in the Set, using at that some other ways/sensors for obtaining information from the Set’s elements, than practically material 5 feeling body’s sensors, which are used in “ordinary” consciousness state.
Again – all that was developed by people thousands of years ago, when humans had practically no rational data about both – “outside Matter”, and “ordinary” everyday - environments; and so those, who return from changed state into “ordinary” state, tell about some objects, events, and processes, which are interpreted – and we cannot exclude that were just experienced – basing on the thousands of years ago knowledge level;
- whereas those, who practices “soul convergence” at “highest” level/”depth”, i.e. “union of the soul with God”, Nirvana in Yoga and Buddhism, etc., aren’t able to formulate rationally –what happens with their “true I”, “soul” etc., at all; and usually tell that “that is impossible to express rationally”.
Correspondingly the really utmost fundamental and actual for humans questions in the last SS post above, are till now answered only in religions, at that only rather specifically, and practically on only a transcendent/irrational level.
Now – i.e. after the development “The Information as Absolute” conception [the link see SS post June 3 above] at least some initial rational answers on the questions above become to be principally possible:
- what is “a human”? – humans are living beings, i.e. informational systems in the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set , which consist of two main sub-systems – practically material body and fundamentally non-material consciousness, the last system uses the body and brain as a stable residence in the Set, power supply, and some auxiliary functional modules. Matter and consciousnesses exist and evolve/operate essentially in parallel in different spaces, and after death of a living being her/his consciousness appears in the Set practically completely behind Matter;
- what is the external to humans World? - that is the “Information” Set, where there exist absolutely infinite “number” of informational patterns/systems, besides Matter and consciousness herself.
However that above is insufficient to answer on a rationally essential level on the question - what is the real place and role of a human in the World?
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
With all due appreciations for the fact that you spend more-than-enough of time and energy to continue discussing with me, I should make it clear to you that I see myself finding (as a common thread almost all throughout these last two posts of yours)that the pre-postulate of your respectable assertions is that:
There are things as present, even if sometimes they fall outside of the range of our human perception, that can be perceived, and also apperceived, which might as well be RE-presented as our (later) conception of them. I ask for the permission to disagree with this ontological assumption. As symbolically represented by words of whatever language, and even more deeply, again as symbolically represented as phenomena of our own understanding, we shall not finally arrive at the originary place of PRESENTATION without still remaining imbued with that very originary-like REPRESENTATION.
The mainstream doctrine of idealism of which you had spoken, much as that of materialism, both remain mirroring this religion-like orientation that there exists in the subliminal activity of any universal or individuated consciousness. The basic threat to escape from imaginary presentation is sweeping under the carpet almost all those remnants of the symbolic order –be it in the format of language or in the format of liminal/subliminal duality – that come to us as appearances in the realm of Ontics. I am surprised [and, to some extent, shocked] that to come to grips with such problematics, you resort to transcendentalism, towards some sort of Absolute, away from the plane of immanence, which your regard to be materialism equated with religion in that sense.
I still beg to disagree to take refuge in reactionary moves inside whatever knowledge or informational system that does not have enough of auxiliary functional modules to deal with problems as they are right here right now.
Best of Regards
Reza
Reza Sanaye,
- most of what you write in last post is already considered in the SS posts above, whereas last two SS posts are mostly not about “ontology” and “epistemology”, that was clarified earlier:
– ontologies of practically all fundamental, i.e. of which are subjects for study just of philosophy, phenomena/notions are clarified scientifically in the "The Information as Absolute” conception, and more in detail about what are “Matter” and “Consciousness” in a few other papers – the links see the SS post June 3 above, and,
- whereas such mainstream philosophical branch “epistemology” is, after the ontologies above are clarified, simply principally superfluous – criteria, methods, etc., how concrete researches should be made, should be determined by real researches, who has much more knowledge in this case than philosophers.
**
At that, after the clarification above, the utmost fundamental philosophical problem “what is the real place and role of a human in the World?, and there exist or not, and, if exists, then what is, some optimal place and role of concrete human in the World?” - or, as that is in Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena post, “what is path towards our own true being"?, becomes be rationally formulated, and now some ways for solving of this problem have became to be rationally elaborated. Two last SS posts above relate to this topic; so let’s continue.
So now the problem above really is as “what is the real place and role of an element of the “Information” Set – of some concrete version of specific informational system “Consciousness”- “consciousness on Earth”, and, first of all, this consciousness’s concrete version “homo sapiens sapiens consciousness” in the “Information” Set?”,
- and – for concrete humans - there exist or not, and, if exists, then what is, some optimal place and role of concrete human in the Set?”
For what it looks as rational to consider scientifically the known experimentally facts, that
- Matter is a closed logically, and so stable, so smartly nicely organized informational system, which, in spite of is based on a simple binary reversible logics and a few additional logical marks [“fundamental Forces”] is, nonetheless, a complex system of practically infinite diversity of its objects; and so practically for sure was designed and created by some version of “Consciousness” - the smart Matter’s Creator – a God in religions. Though we cannot exclude some “spontaneous” appearance of Matter in the Set because of non-known now some intrinsic property of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information”;
- the “consciousness on Earth” exists in all living beings on Earth, and uses practically material living beings bodies/organisms as a stable residence in the Set, power supply, and some auxiliary functional modules;
- the “consciousness on Earth” developed in a few billions of years her analytical ability at obtaining and processing of information about environment, now seems for all living beings before “ homo-two sapiens”, and “ homo-two sapiens” in “ordinary” state of operations, including in the “mind mode”, about material objects and other living beings, from, on first glance primitive data obtaining/processing in first bio-structures up to having well developed “mind-mode” “ homo-two sapiens” consciousness, and this development looks as has the trend “more and more outside Matter”.
From what a number of concrete problems follow
– this “Consciousness” version existed or not in parallel with Creator in the Set?, or is some deliberate design of Creator? or is some uncontrolled action at Creator consciousness operation in some sub-conscious mode of operation?, etc.
- if “consciousness on Earth” was Creator’s design – what is the purpose of the creation?
- was the development trend above controlled by only the consciousness, or also by something else?
- are the consciousnesses of all living beings are versions of the same initial version, which simply modifies material residence aimed at obtaining more functional abilities, or next consciousness versions in next “advanced materially” living beings obtain some new “own” purely fundamentally non-material “program shell modules”?
- including – how the system of “consciousnesses on Earth” exists and is developing – that are elements of some infinite “bank of consciousnesses” in the Set? or the consciousnesses are cloned at a next living beings appearance?, etc.
- can the “consciousnesses on Earth” be damaged or not in the Set?, and, if, what looks as rational - can be damaged, than – to what state – i.e. the consciousness has some “BIOS”, which by some ways is well stable closed logically informational system, and so remains be active and potentially being developed in an active in the Set system if obtains a stable residence? – as that looks as well probably happens after death of some living being?
And - what is such residence? – that looks as important in the trend “more and more out Matter” above, which is provided till now essentially by modification of the brain; so this trend remains now actual or not?, if yes, than – what should be the brain modifications, which were made by “consciousnesses on Earth” when the consciousness had rather weak ability for modifications, however now gene engineering is a powerful tool, and the modifications can be made deliberately and effectively – so what such modifications are?
Or, as that some people showed thousands of years ago, the “homo-two sapiens consciousnesses on Earth” already now has much more functional abilities in some “non-ordinary states”; and really, instead of material modification, the “path towards our own true being” is in somewhere else?
Etc., there are many other concrete problems in this case, of course; however as some introduction in the main problem 3 last SS posts seems are enough.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
The classification of systems ( or rather , hierarchies) of any sober economy of Epistemic naming , naming of things , naming of events , naming of name classifiers themselves , is , in point of fact , part and parcel of the mystery of the decision and the mystery of the hierarchy respectively supporting each other. One does not know for sure where to stand for questioning ontological presuppositions without calculation and without rules, without reason or without rationality. Borderlines of any phenomenon appear to be better places for monitoring the activities of Virtuals. Towards the “center” of an entity , irrationality not only occasionally breaks into ecstatic moments of the calculation of decisions but reaches the foundations of formal rationality. Such a level of Onto_Epistemic rationalization is to be avoided , keeping in mind that exposing the irrational is not the end of analysis.
The confluence of identity and difference can be stunning yet, the important isomorphs, analogies, and selected affinities are not discovered.
Systems are usually selective embodiment techniques as preferred for theoreticians.
Autopoietic ontology remains with pieces of difference, of itération, of trace that are deconstructive. This is certainly intriguing to building theory, however, it just leads to an involution without disturbing the foundations, the architectonics of Ontics.
“…The classification of systems ( or rather , hierarchies) of any sober economy of Epistemic naming , naming of things , naming of events , naming of name classifiers themselves , is , in point of fact , part and parcel of the mystery of the decision and the mystery of the hierarchy respectively supporting each other. …..”, etc.
- that is typical mainstream philosophical passage [and “etc.” as a whole], which has an only mainstream philosophical sense – since the mainstream philosophical sense is producing transcendent/undefined/irrational wordings; what, again, is the inevitable logical consequence of the fact, that in mainstream philosophy all indeed fundamental phenomena/notions are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and it seems it is worthwhile to repeat here again, that after in the indeed philosophical Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, the ontology of practically all phenomena/notions above are scientifically rationally defined
– first of all, in the conception it is rigorously proven, that there exist absolutely for sure nothing besides some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set, including the observable by humans utmost fundamental in the mainstream philosophy “Matter” and “Consciousness” are nothing else than some informational systems/elements of the Set.
That determines so utmost common ontology of “Matter” and “Consciousness” practically completely sufficiently, because of the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Information” by no means is some transcendent phenomenon, has rigorous common definition – see SS post June 3 above, and can be rationally scientifically studied without any principally unsolvable problems.
So, again, a “concrete ontology” of “Matter” and “Consciousness” now is outside the indeed philosophy, that is the subject for study just by “ordinary” sciences – whereas practically all other fundamental phenomena/notions, as, say, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, etc., which are used in scientific theories, are scientifically defined in the conception as well;
- and, besides, in the developed SS&VT physical and consciousness models [links see SS post June 3 above] it is scientifically explained - how the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions, which act in whole Set, are actualized in concrete the Set’s elements “Matter” and “Consciousness”, and these models are now rational base for further development of corresponding sciences.
Correspondingly the existent mainstream philosophical branch “Epistemology” is now superfluous in the indeed philosophy – how researches should be made – that the real researchers know much better than philosophers,
- whereas the indeed philosophy must be based on the conception above, where the philosophy obtains now really utmost fundamental subjects for study – the ontology of “Information” and “Information” Set,
- and the main purpose of the study – the answer on the utmost important and actual for humans questions - “what is the real place and role of a human in the World?, and there exist or not, and, if exists, then what it is, some optimal place and role of concrete human in the World?” - or, as that is in Juana Maria Arcelus-Ulibarrena post, “what is path towards our own true being"?
The last 3 SS posts series above concretizes to some extent these questions; a couple of SS comments in the project https://www.researchgate.net/project/TOWARDS-A-NEW-RELIGION/update/60c5ffe55e24cd00016487b4
- are relevant in this case to this discussion.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Information as Absolute is not very far from the Hegelian Absolute right after Kant’s demise when it had already been well expounded that there are borders and limitations to Human Episteme , under whatever ontological circumstances and\or descriptions. So stated, the argument is peculiar and somewhat crude, but new versions of the ontological argument are still being produced today , not unlike what you , unfortunately , are doing. Some people will formulate a commonsense ontology, with the most real entities being chairs, bodies, people; some will take a more scientific viewpoint and say that what is most real are those things discovered by science, like electrons and genes. Other people will take a more spiritual approach and rank God highest, along with soul; some will always take people to be most real. Under any conditions , we cannot not reject the metaphysics of materialism. Drawing a metaphysical conclusion from such purely epistemological premises is always a questionable practice. On the other hand, one has to notice, with regard to the most significant episteme, that there are several kinds of pratyaks: the comments of Sā zukhya Kārikā, Yuktidīpikā and yogic perception. Indeed, various schools differentiating between the aparapratyak testamentary, conventional and parapratyak testaments, supernormal perceptions or, as the sā testaments, exterior perceptions, bahya-pratyak testaments and internal perceptive perception of abahya pratyak testigo. The latter, the supernormal nature, is the impression of the interest in yoga. But even the astounding assertions of all-knowingness that one meets in the book are only meaningful as signs of what the yogi will experience. The startling claims of omniscience that one encounters in the text are relevant only as signposts of experiences that the yogī will encounter on the path of Yoga, NOT AS ARTICLES OF FAITH. Even in Plato we have a figure of the big Other in the absolute eternal ideal which would ensure the truth, beauty, and goodness of a certain logical proposition. As mentioned previously, we also have the idea that an absolute knowing would include some type of background authorization, as if absolute truth, goodness and beauty can be correlated with the eternal ideal which exists in and for itself independent of the subject. Finally, we have the idea that human knowledge is a part of a progressive collective build up or telos towards a final end that would be represented as full knowledge. Limits to Absolute could well be quantitative, and they show that something is not absolutely complete within the system itself. A peculiar characteristic of boundaries is that they always presuppose a space existing outside a certain definite place, inclosing it. ……….
ONTOLOGY is the part of metaphysics that studies being in general and its properties.
"Although the science of being has existed since the time of Parmenides, the term‘ ontology ’appears for the first time in the early seventeenth century" (Oxford Dictionary); It is a term that in philosophy serves to indicate the theory of being, of existence, unlike gnoseology or EPISTEMOLOGY, which is the theory of knowledge. ... Its object, as it deals with the abstract and general philosophical categories: on being, on substance, cause, effect, phenomenon.
For its part, EPISTEMOLOGY is the part of philosophy that studies the principles, foundations, extension and methods of human knowledge. In this sense, epistemology studies the foundations and methods of scientific knowledge. To do this, it takes into account historical, social and psychological factors in order to determine the process of construction of knowledge, its justification and veracity.
Epistemology tries to give answers to questions such as: what is knowledge? Does it derive from reason or experience? How do we determine that what we have understood is, in fact, true? What do we achieve with this truth? ; thus, it is a discipline that is used to apply in Sciences in order to establish the degree of certainty of scientific knowledge in its different areas. In this way, Epistemology can also be considered part of the philosophy of science, which is not the case with Ontology.
It seems that it is necessary to repeat here, that in the mainstream philosophy and official sciences all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Matter” and “Consciousness”, are principally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and so quite logically inevitably really in mainstream ONTOLOGY, i.e. the part of metaphysics that studies being in general and its properties, i.e. of “Matter” ,“Consciousness”, and of any “ordinary” objects/phenomena/notions, as, say, “particle”, “body”, etc., in physics, “electrons and genes”, [and “Life” at all], “human” in biosciences, including psychology and social sciences, etc., are principally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational as well.
Correspondingly that EPISTEMOLOGY, i.e. . the part of philosophy, that “studies the principles, foundations, extension and methods of human knowledge”, really “studies” principally transcendent, etc., “principles”, “foundations”, “extension and methods” of “human knowledge”.
At that it is quite evident, that without ontological answers on the questions “what is that is studied?” – i.e. “what are “Matter” and “Consciousness”?” , and what is that studies? ?” – i.e. “what is “Consciousness”?”
- it is principally impossible to answer on the questions, say, as “what is human knowledge?”, and so it seems as even too strange, that having no any even rational answers on these questions , some people, nonetheless, “develop” some principles, foundations, extension and methods of human knowledge .
Again, the indeed philosophy, i.e. the science “philosophy” is possible only in framework of “The Information as Absolute” conception [see the link in the SS post above], where ontologies of Matter and Consciousness are scientifically defined on “philosophical” level, and so both these fundamental phenomena have became the subjects for study by nature sciences outside philosophy; and
- the rather strange mainstream philosophical branch “Epistemology”, where some people, which really didn’t make any real research, teach real researches how they must make their researches, is now superfluous branch at all – as the mainstream “Ontology” as well, though.
More about what is philosophy see attached PDF
At that the conception formulates now new – and indeed utmost fundamental, i.e. just philosophical, problems – again see the SS post above.
Recent SS comments to the papers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321757886_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_Marxism_and_now/comments, and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness/comments
- are relevant really to this thread real problems.
Cheers
Last recent few SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness#view=60fd8c3272ed370c0c5b5f3b
- are essentially relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Recent SS posts in the threads
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_goal_do_you_think_humanity_is_not_focused_enough_on_achieving
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness#view=60fd8c3272ed370c0c5b5f3b
https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now#view=610fbe09c97b9055bf502ad3
- are next examples how real ontology without unreal epistemology really helps science.
Cheers
“…Ontology definition is - a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being. Where as epistemology deals with the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge.…..”
- again – see the SS post July 7 above, that Ontology mustconcern with the nature and relations of being was established yet by fathers of philosophy in Antic times, and the fathers seems understood – what the problem “Ontology” means, i.e. that the phenomenon/notion “Being” really is transcendent for humans in those times, and that humans have only some indirect, sometimes illusory, knowledge about this transcendent thing; and that a nonetheless rational knowledge, for some transcendent reason, humans, obtain by some transcendent way completely transcendently – only instinctively;
- and so the next main philosophical problem is – what is this way? – i.e. why and how, if non-transcendently/instinctively, humans do that?
All these questions aren’t answered in mainstream philosophy till now, first of all ontologies of utmost fundamental in mainstream phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” are completely transcendent in the mainstream;
- and in this case any “epistemology” is senseless - it is evidently impossible to obtain some rational answer on the question what is nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge, if there is no answers on what are the ontologies above, i.e. there is no answer on the evident in this case question “so what studies of what?”.
Again in this thread, really philosophy can be a real science only in framework of the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception [the link see the SS post June 18 above], where ontology of fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter” and “Consciousness” – and of all other really fundamental phenomena/notions, which by some ways determine also the ontology of the two the utmost fundamental ones, is scientifically clarified; and everything isn’t transcendent now; including “epistemology” is a superfluous in real science “philosophy”.
Thus now “Matter” and “Consciousness” already aren’t subjects for study by philosophy, now that are subjects for study by “ordinary” sciences, where scientists study these phenomena much better than philosophers – and the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge scientists know much better than philosophers, since they produce [new] knowledge professionally.
However in the conception, real philosophy obtains new – and really utmost fundamental subjects for study – the absolutely fundamental “Information” Set – and the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Information”;
- and the utmost fundamental for humans problem – what is the place and role of human’s consciousness in the “Information” Set, and what are optimal methods and ways aimed at appearing of the consciousness in optimal place with optimal role?
- whereas, say, yet now every fundamentally non-material human’s consciousness occurs in some purely non-material place in the Set.
More about some points in the “Consciousness problem” see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-could-be-proof-of-consciousness, and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness#view=61223caa8184eb010a5a28b4
though last time this thread is filled by a vivid, typical mainstream, i.e. rather strange, posting.
Cheers
Ontology deals with existence of mankind in society and universe as individual. Whereas, epistomology deals with knowing.
“…Ontology deals with existence of mankind in society and universe as individual. Whereas, epistomology deals with knowing...”
- yeah, that – as that the fathers of philosophy established - must be so. However, if we say about mainstream ontology and epistemology, the result of the mainstream dealing with “existence of mankind in society and universe as individual”, and with “knowing” , is rather strange….
Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_mathematically_model_consciousness#view=612372de075bec335945cd36,
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness, and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do-you-believe-in-the-Theory-of-Evolution
- scientifically deal with ontology of fundamental phenomenon/notion “Consciousness” .
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Affect – to affect and be affected. Anthropologists and others having to do with their own Episteme have considered questions of bodies, sensation, emotion, and social change. ... .....................For others, affect is contrasted with structure or form: it is bodily sensation or intensity—- dynamic, energetic, mobile. Raymond Williams’s concept of ‘structure of feeling’ may be applied to explicate one key inspiration for a turn to affect in Ontology : between the terms "event" and "structure"-- In addition to the gap between affect and emotion, there is also a difference between an ontological account of feeling (applied to all of nature via Spinoza and Whitehead) and an anthropological account. Affect is re-contextualized as the cultural formation of a coherent transdisciplinary process understood via these Ontologically-oriented arguments.
A few last SS posts in the threads https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-could-be-proof-of-consciousness#view=61336bcd2f0fa05ceb06c803, and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness
- scientifically deal with ontology of fundamental phenomenon/notion “Consciousness”. And relate to what are really utmost fundamental problems in real science “Philosophy”, though.
Cheers
Ontology, as a branch of philosophy, is the science of what is, of the kinds and structures of objects. In simple terms, ontology seeks the classification and explanation of entities. Ontology is about the object of inquiry, what you set to examine. Epistemologically speaking, Only via pure apperception can man know himself, as he does the rest of nature. This is the precedence of consciousness over matter.
A few last SS posts in the threads https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-could-be-proof-of-consciousness#view=61336bcd2f0fa05ceb06c803, and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If-every-neuron-in-a-human-was-accurately-simulated-in-a-computer-would-it-result-in-human-consciousness
- are again relevant to this thread question, and these threads last time aren’t too spammed.
Cheers
Philosophically, ontology is the study of what exists, the sorts of objects and their structures. An ontology tries to classify and explain items in simple terms. For example, the topic of inquiry, or what you set out to study is called ontology. Epistemologically, man can only know himself by pure perception, just as he knows the rest of nature. Awareness takes priority over materiality in this case.
Congratulation to the outstanding and interesting question of the differences between ontology and epistemology. Have a good day!!!
epistemology of An affect is a non-conscious experience of intensity; it is a moment of unformed and unstructured potential. – affect is the most abstract Ontos because affect cannot be fully realised in language, and because affect is always epistemologically prior to and/or outside of consciousness .
Dear All, this is a late answer, I made a mind map of the things, It will be more readily understood by the people who struggled with these terminologies. Request you all to watch it through
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Ontology_Epistemology_And_Axiology_Relate_To_Develop_New_Knowledge_Through_Research_Methodology_And_Research_Design
Dear Dr. Chaudry Bilal Ahmad Khan
It is necessary to know how to live in our new complexity with a "multiple look" and to open up our range of possibilities. The current situation, led and marked by Covid-19, continues to generate unprecedented public interest around a vast series of "problems" and "disputes" within Science itself and in relation to the Society, Social and Economic Policy that follows seeing ourselves "as passive subjects", but we are still protagonists. "Governments succeed each other but continue to" copy "the strategies between them. An epistemological reflection on the post Covid-19 would bring to light the plurality of code transformations "theoretical" and "practical" of the new scientific knowledge that we have generated, and would indicate the way forward to "rebuild" and "reinvent" a common dialogue that contributes to overcoming the conflict in the epistemological sphere and with the appropriate tools. The way forward is not easy if we do not always put the word "humility" first