Traditional Epistemology vs Contemporary Epistemology

[Guille]

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.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Guille, I think we must study all the different branches of ideation at once. We must study, subject/object, metaphysical/logical, ontological/teleological/mereological, and all such mind, and reality topics. The problem with almost all philosophy has been some form of exclusionism, whether of Aristotle or new ones like Richard Rorty. Exclusionism is the enemy of true philosophy. At the same time, all areas of philosophy must be kept in their formal languages' presentations, not to be mis-understood. Also, we should work through the newer schools of systemology, to unite all the various inter-disciplinary schools of thought. I work in the area of systemology, as espoused by such notables as Kondratieff on. I have great confidence in much of the Russian vein of thought, as contributary to philosophy. The schools of systemology are working toward the united universal concept, to better express our yet incomplete perception understanding of the whole. I think this is a very promising area for the integration toward a new theory of everything. I really see no other way, except to integrate it all into the answers we all seek.

Epistemologically speaking, the world of our emotional desires, greatly exceeds the capacities of the world's present formal logical systems of real institutions and nations, to supply. If we truly look at the entire world, it's the historical evolution of total logic systems of all nations, that holds our emotional desires in check. Thus, in order to improve the human condition, to allow a greater expansion of true emotional liberty, we must better understand the epistemology of systemology, and its possible new integrations into better universal justice systems, i.e., sensible scientific semi-utopias.

[Guille]

Hi Lloyd, thanks for answering on this thread.

Guille, I think we must study all the different branches of ideation at once. We must study, subject/object, metaphysical/logical, ontological/teleological/mereological, and all such mind, and reality topics.

I agree. What is mereological? And teleological? Those two terms I’ve come alogn sometimes but didn’t understand. But I agree that we should study all parts of existence.

The problem with almost all philosophy has been some form of exclusionism, whether of Aristotle or new ones like Richard Rorty. Exclusionism is the enemy of true philosophy.

Interesting point. I have seen throughout reading philosophy that philosophers and philosophies can’t embrace it all. They can’t because the have to be more centered on some things than on others. But this is simply impossible to escape form. If you truly try and philosophize, you will see it’s not possible to have all observations from reality and therefore impossible to have all cognitions (concepts) clear. With Husserl’s phenomenology, and the relativity/subjectivity problem, it is simply proved that we can’t make a perfect philosophy that explains reality exactly.

At the same time, all areas of philosophy must be kept in their formal languages' presentations, not to be mis-understood. Also, we should work through the newer schools of systemology, to unite all the various inter-disciplinary schools of thought. I work in the area of systemology, as espoused by such notables as Kondratieff on. I have great confidence in much of the Russian vein of thought, as contributary to philosophy. The schools of systemology are working toward the united universal concept, to better express our yet incomplete perception understanding of the whole. I think this is a very promising area for the integration toward a new theory of everything. I really see no other way, except to integrate it all into the answers we all seek.

No possible systematic true philosophy is possible. We started to notice this from the rationalist, from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. They knew it, so did the empiricist, and the idealist. So did Hegel, and so did Kierkegaard. So did Engels, Feuerbach, Bakunin, Marx, Stuart Mill. Even Pierce and Dewey knew. And Russell, Wittgenstein and Carnap. And Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre and Heidegger. And I know, and you know now. Systemology is not systematic, nor is methodology methodological. I don’t understand why now people want to make things show themselves and use themselves and contain themselves. This is not existential. Jaspers knew.

Epistemologically speaking, the world of our emotional desires, greatly exceeds the capacities of the world's present formal logical systems of real institutions and nations, to supply. If we truly look at the entire world, it's the historical evolution of total logic systems of all nations, that holds our emotional desires in check. Thus, in order to improve the human condition, to allow a greater expansion of true emotional liberty, we must better understand the epistemology of systemology, and its possible new integrations into better universal justice systems, i.e., sensible scientific semi-utopias.

We have more thoughts than feelings but feelings are ‘bigger’ in average than thoughts. The total final proportions depend on the person. Semi-utopias are not utopias nor are they non-utopias, they simply don’t exist. Either perfect happiness or imperfect happiness/unhappiness, no semi-perfect happiness exists.

[mkirkpatrick]

Sounds like someone has swallowed a dictionary for there breakfast,keep it simple please,there are enough headaches without adding to them.

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Lloyd, thanks for answering on this thread.



I agree. What is mereological? And teleological? Those two terms I’ve come alogn sometimes but didn’t understand. But I agree that we should study all parts of existence.

Teleology is the study of parts, the many. Ontology is the study of the whole, the one, and mereology is the study of both, the one and the many united.

Interesting point. I have seen throughout reading philosophy that philosophers and philosophies can’t embrace it all. They can’t because the have to be more centered on some things than on others. But this is simply impossible to escape form. If you truly try and philosophize, you will see it’s not possible to have all observations from reality and therefore impossible to have all cognitions (concepts) clear. With Husserl’s phenomenology, and the relativity/subjectivity problem, it is simply proved that we can’t make a perfect philosophy that explains reality exactly.

Guille, my point is that it is possible to achieve an almost perfect philosophy, if we simply express all points of view and show where they all tie into the whole, why they are true or not, and why they are thought so. Now this may seem like an impossible task, but I assure you it is not. Just because past philosophers have failed, doesn't mean we must. Once the problems of disagreements are pointed out, we can now remedy the past. As I've stated Peirce came close, and Husserl also pointed our important issues between philosophy and psychology. If we use Peirce's deffinition of pragmaticism, [of its core being the difference between being and Being], we have a good start, as it expands on Heraclitus and Heidegger. You'd have to read Peirce completely, to know what I mean. Of the modern philosophers, I consider him the greatest. All cognitions need not be present at once, as long as they are represented in the dialogue or thesis. Once recognized as all being present, they are cognizable. We can see the whole at once if we but try, just as Heraclitus so clearly showed us, long ago.

No possible systematic true philosophy is possible. We started to notice this from the rationalist, from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. They knew it, so did the empiricist, and the idealist. So did Hegel, and so did Kierkegaard. So did Engels, Feuerbach, Bakunin, Marx, Stuart Mill. Even Pierce and Dewey knew. And Russell, Wittgenstein and Carnap. And Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, Sartre and Heidegger. And I know, and you know now. Systemology is not systematic, nor is methodology methodological. I don’t understand why now people want to make things show themselves and use themselves and contain themselves. This is not existential. Jaspers knew.

All over the world, at the present time, are many schools of systemology and universology attempting the unification of the inter-disciplinary studies into a new coherent whole, just as is being attempted at this site. To say a systematic true philosophy is impossible is just pandering to pessimism and personal prejudice, i.e., solipsism. Napoleon stated long ago that impossible is only found in the dictionary of fools, and I concur. Now, let's be more positive and realize all is possible, because it eventually has to be, in an infinite change and choice world. The numbers are on my side. You seem to be reading too much of set theory and higher order logic into first order logic and math. I have stated several times on this site that Godel also showed proof of first order logic and math completeness. First order logic and math is all philosophy needs to prove itself scientifically correct. It doesn't need the incomplete second order logic and math of infinite numbers and set theory. So, things of themselves, can be expressed of themselves, in themselves, by themselves, without creating any higher order logic and math paradoxes, as Godel easily showed. I can talk about myself from my infinite self-soul/mind, right down to my finite single one word concept, without any semantical or paradoxical conflict, even if it seems to create paradoxes and semantical puzzles in others. It's not my fault others believe in semantical puzzles and paradoxes, when I absolutely know they don't exist.

We have more thoughts than feelings but feelings are ‘bigger’ in average than thoughts. The total final proportions depend on the person. Semi-utopias are not utopias nor are they non-utopias, they simply don’t exist. Either perfect happiness or imperfect happiness/unhappiness, no semi-perfect happiness exists.

Guille, when you quote me you keep confusing my definition of systemological utopias and semi-utopias with your personal definitions. I don't believe in your definition of happiness. It's just a solipsistic opinion of an undefined emotion. Defined emotions, to me, are logical understandings of self-being, and nothing more. Self-being is direct logical cognition of the world and its true perceptions. And finally, you should try to be less critical of what you are not aware of. Semi-utopias are quite existent throughout history. There are many definitions on the web. It's just an easy way of discussing systemological and universological ideas which have been discussed for centuries, especially by many earlier anarchist philosophers, even though I am not one. Scientific semi-utopias are quite valid topics in the newest inter-disciplinary unification and integration theories, and facts. For a quick reference, check it out on wikipedia[wackipedia] and google - universology and systemology.

We will only discover the truth when we unite the one and the many, but I fear the language will and must remain complex, unless we develop a new isomorphic, metaphoric logic and synthesis.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Sounds like someone has swallowed a dictionary for there breakfast,keep it simple please,there are enough headaches without adding to them.

regards michael.

Hey Michael, how about a little irrational expectation and exhuberance? Intelligence is the competition of rationalism - Comedy is the competition of irrationalism. Thus integral intelligence is irrationalism/rationalism, as the study of the one and the many, in the one. It's a self-irrational/rational chance and choice world - the quantum certain/uncertain mind!

[mkirkpatrick]

Hey Michael, how about a little irrational expectation and exhuberance? Intelligence is the competition of rationalism - Comedy is the competition of irrationalism. Thus integral intelligence is irrationalism/rationalism, as the study of the one and the many, in the one. It's a self-irrational/rational chance and choice world - the quantum certain/uncertain mind!

You are of course quite right,I am irrational,but without the expectation and exhuberance,I have often tried comedy but that is no laughing matter,my grandfather often used to say,(be they shot him)that is,that if you can laugh at your self,and your own stupidity,then you will not go far wrong,well was he right
or was he right.

regards michael.

[labelwench]

Our language and thought systems have broadened and diversified, and with new technology, our means of communicating this data.

Our emotional system, remains little more evolved than from first we began to record our thoughts and feelings.

Emotions are often irrational.

Interesting, then, that we experience them thusly, when our logic indicates that such a response is irrational.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Since emotional feelings are part and parcel of life, we may find it useful to use emotions to tip the balance of logical decisions sometimes, such as in an open-style house that wastes square footage, a romantic life partner, not surrounding one's self with the all-too-serious types, etc.