1Z wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>
>>As my physics prof, Jurgen Ehlers used to say, "Before we can say whether or
>>not a thing exists we must know some of it's properities." So to know
>>whether or not bigfoot exists we need to know enough properties of the
>>concept 'bigfoot', like "big", "hairy", "bipedal", "lives in woods of the
>>Pacific Northwest",... Given enough properties we may be able to test his
>>existence against empirical evidence and reach a provisional conclusion.
>>
>>So epistemology precedes ontology.
>
>
> OTOH, ontology precedes epistemology, because you
> can't figure out whether anything else exists unless you exist!
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an unsupported inference. The most that could be said is,
"There's thinking." If your ontology includes processes like "thinking"
then I suppose it does precede your empistemology. But you can't kick
thinking and if you could it wouldn't kick back - unless the ESPers are
right. ;-)
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Aug 13 2006 - 16:40:30 PDT