Theory of Everything - View Single Post - Traditional Epistemology vs Contemporary Epistemology

Guille · **Traditional Epistemology vs Contemporary Epistemology -** 01-16-2006, 07:08 AM

There is a main distinction in the history of Epistemology. There was a point, were we went from one way to another. Of course, each of the two groups had several different movements, theories, systems... But in studying epistemology, there are two main conceptions: the traditional epistemology and the contemporary epistemology. The first as founded by Aristotle and his followers, but was mainly developed during the 1700s. The contemporary epistemology was founded by the circle of Vienna and other analytic philosophers. The main difference is that whiles traditional epistemology centred their study up the object, the thing that we can know, the contemporary philosophers countered by studying the subject, his brain and mind, and his ability to know something.

Which do you think is a better way to study what we can know? Why?

If you believe both methods are wrong, and you have developed one yourself, please post it.

	(#1 (permalink))
Guille The Thinker Status: Offline Posts: 3,278 Thanks Given: 14 Thanked 9x in 9 Posts Join Date: Mar 2005 Rep Power: 47	Traditional Epistemology vs Contemporary Epistemology - 01-16-2006, 07:08 AM There is a main distinction in the history of Epistemology. There was a point, were we went from one way to another. Of course, each of the two groups had several different movements, theories, systems... But in studying epistemology, there are two main conceptions: the traditional epistemology and the contemporary epistemology. The first as founded by Aristotle and his followers, but was mainly developed during the 1700s. The contemporary epistemology was founded by the circle of Vienna and other analytic philosophers. The main difference is that whiles traditional epistemology centred their study up the object, the thing that we can know, the contemporary philosophers countered by studying the subject, his brain and mind, and his ability to know something. Which do you think is a better way to study what we can know? Why? If you believe both methods are wrong, and you have developed one yourself, please post it.