Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that relates to the faculty of learning, all knowledge is hierarchical from past knowledge, philosophers, engineers, scientists base their new knowledge on the foundations of previous known knowledge.

Epistemology in philosophy has its roots with Plato and the ancient skeptics.

Platonist epistemology suggests that all knowledge is innate, (like some authoritative inner consciousness’s voice) that one perceives.
Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth.

Aristotle when it came to epistemology argued that one learned by experience, that innate knowledge was not possible to understand reality, but through sense perception. I quote: “ Aristotle maintained that almost all knowledge is derived from experience. Knowledge is gained either directly, by abstracting the defining traits of a species, or indirectly, by deducing new facts from those already known, in accordance with the rules of logic.”

Ok! I’ve tried to write this with my own words as much as I could, so were do I draw the idea that only basically two theoretical philosophies exist in the world. Most philosophers in the west after Plato and Aristotle maintained the premise of innate knowledge, higher “truths” such as religious dogma, mysticism, and Aristotelian authors maintained that knowledge is derived by objective reality, by our experiences and our own human senses. These two schools of thought have been in constant struggle through out all human history since the Greeks of ancient past. Platonists won, they have infested the world with “higher truths” the father of mysticism gave rice to gods, authoritative governments were the individual was considered to be evil were the individual was to be “controlled”

Were the Aristotle premise gave rice to the ideal of humans are not innately evil, that most want to produce values for fellow humans, and profit. Hence Aristotle the father of business, and objectivism.

References:
http://www.connect.net/ron/epistemology.html
http://www.gibson-design.com/glossary-epistemology.html
http://www.neo-tech.com/neotech/advantages/advantage77.html

Godless.

No offence intended, but:

were ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûr)
v.
Second person singular and plural and first and third person plural past indicative of be.
Past subjunctive of be. See Usage Note at if. See Usage Note at wish.

where ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hwâr, wâr)
adv.
At or in what place: Where is the telephone?
In what situation or position: Where would we be without your help?
From what place or source: Where did you get this idea?
To what place; toward what end: Where is this argument leading?

Jubatus, the thread was started, from another thread argument that was going into another field of study.

Where is this argument leading?

Basically I'm trying to show, that philosophy "epistemology" follows eithre Plato's "higher truths" compared to Aristotles, sense perception. Plato argues that knowledge is innate, while Aristotle argues one learns by experience. Ok.

Godless.

Sorry I've been slow in replying. I still haven't had the chance to devote myself to the topic enough to really delve into it deeply at the moment. However, I will make a couple of comments and ask a couple of basic questions.

Platonist epistemology suggests that all knowledge is innate, (like some authoritative inner consciousness’s voice) that one perceives.
Platonic idealism is the theory that the substantive reality around us is only a reflection of a higher truth.

So Plato believes that there are absolute truths. That there are truths that can be defined that will never change. That these truths come from outside. From gods or some higher power.

Aristotle when it came to epistemology argued that one learned by experience, that innate knowledge was not possible to understand reality, but through sense perception. I quote: “ Aristotle maintained that almost all knowledge is derived from experience. Knowledge is gained either directly, by abstracting the defining traits of a species, or indirectly, by deducing new facts from those already known, in accordance with the rules of logic.”

However, the link (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html)you gave in the philosophy thread stated this, "Though Aristotle puts more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge, he still accepts the view that such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary and universal principles." So, Aristotle also believed in absolute truths.

Platonists won, they have infested the world with “higher truths” the father of mysticism gave rice to gods, authoritative governments were the individual was considered to be evil were the individual was to be “controlled”

Hmm. That's what I thought you said. So, we're living in age of mysticism then? How odd. How do you jibe this with all the scientific progress? Would you say that Relativity is a sign of Platonism?

Were the Aristotle premise gave rice to the ideal of humans are not innately evil, that most want to produce values for fellow humans, and profit. Hence Aristotle the father of business, and objectivism.

And this. Business. Aren't we in an age of business? Isn't capitalism Aristotelian? Or did this age stop when unions were formed and Rockefeller was no longer allowed to carry on such cut-throat business practices.

How does this jibe with the fact that business is a dog-eat-dog world? THere is no wanting to be helpful or productive in most business. IT's all about the bottom line.


This is just page filler, I know. I've been quite distracted. Too much going on in too many directions. I will devote time later tonight to looking up your sources and looking for angles to expand this thread.

Were the Aristotle premise gave rice to the ideal of humans are not innately evil, that most want to produce values for fellow humans, and profit. Hence Aristotle the father of business, and objectivism.

Wait, so you say that Plato was of the opinion that humans were innately evil? Or do I just read that wrong?
I always thought that Plato had the opinion that humans were good if they are just shown the right way. Which also led him to his concept of a perfect state, ordered under a King of Philosophers in which each individual worked and learned according to his abilities.



Ok! I’ve tried to write this with my own words as much as I could, so were do I draw the idea that only basically two theoretical philosophies exist in the world. Most philosophers in the west after Plato and Aristotle maintained the premise of innate knowledge, higher “truths” such as religious dogma, mysticism, and Aristotelian authors maintained that knowledge is derived by objective reality, by our experiences and our own human senses.

You are right, those are two theoretical philosophies, but they are not the only basical ones. Some actually believe that the things we perceive are not to be trusted, while the mind of a newborn is totally blank. This of course reduces the possibilities to find truths, or anything for that part. One can only assure that one´s self exist in some way. Everything else might just be a fantasy. Of course, you could take that as a universal truth, depends on the point of view.
Then you could move on to philosophies that do not put great weight on thoughts but rather on deeds. Act so that you only help others, as long as no one else is harmed. It is all abot following the right path, if you learn and gain knowledge you will leave the path and so on.
That last example would go against Plato because he believes that people have to learn.

But initially I agree with you that Plato and Aristotele are perhaps the most influential western philosophers. One for Imperatives, the other one an Empiricist. And time has somehow merged parts of those viewpoints.

Hmm. That's what I thought you said. So, we're living in age of mysticism then? How odd. How do you jibe this with all the scientific progress? Would you say that Relativity is a sign of Platonism?

We are living in an age "infested" with mysticism. Not a totally mystic society such as those that existed during the "dark ages".

Remember my argument? that basically two systems exist. Well there you go,we have Platonist mysticism and at the same time Aristotelian objectivism. Where do you think, our fore fathers of these here USA, got their objectivist ideas? Aristotle amongst others And I quote: Rand.

( It took centuries of intellectual philosophical development to achieve political freedom, It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on idividual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both.)

And can't you tell the difference, or realize that the two system of thoughts exists withing one nation, and the world?

You have business, you have the church, you have subjective governments, with some objective rules, and vise versa, both exist. I don't think I mentioned that we "exist only on Platonists ideals" I much have stated that there are (two schools of thought in philosphy) mainly the two hence the "higher Truths" or the "objective sensation" to know reality, all other authors that came after them either wrote, mostly Platonistic and "Few" wrote Aristotelianistic. Hume, Locke, Rand, Russel, to name but a few that pops to my head, Platonist; Fromm, Carl Marx, Kant. Id name more however those are just a few that pops to my head, (my books are packed) LOL..



Isn't capitalism Aristotelian? Or did this age stop when unions were formed and Rockefeller was no longer allowed to carry on such cut-throat business practices.

Yes, I think I covered most of this above.

How does this jibe with the fact that business is a dog-eat-dog world? THere is no wanting to be helpful or productive in most business.

This is the way you've been tought to look at business?
Bussiness is competitive, I'll give you that, however becuase of capitalism you are able to "afford that computer you type on" Every man is on his own, no bussiness is not to blame for peoples short commings, neither are the successfull people they put a lot of work to get their success, failure is not to be blamed on the success of others. (see the mysticism) *creating problems were non-exist.*

And if it were not for the "drug companies" to be helpfull is what they do, how about the philantropist? they are mostly from gigantic bussiness conglomerates. And how can you say Microsoft is not productive? LOL. Or Dow? They produce everyday stuff that you use, Procter & Gamble are responsible for keeping you clean. (they invented "soap bar, shampoo, tooth brush, tooth paste" during the Civil War) and Today they still exist.

Ray Crock founded an enterprice that feeds billions today! at afordable prices. You know who Ray Crock was?.

Sam Walton founded the largest retail enterprize of the US, do you know who that is, and what company I'm talking about? BTW, this company's philantropist foundation gives away in the tune of billions a year, next to the Gates' that also have a philatropist foundation.

Well that's it for now, however don't think I've gone silent, when I don't answer anyomre ok, I'll be leaving Friday to Las Vegas to look for an apt. Will be gone about a week, then I will move. So it will be a while to get connected again.

Godless.

Wait, so you say that Plato was of the opinion that humans were innately evil?

Not sure but it did spawn out of his philosophical foundation.

neo-platonist model. (http://www.logon.org/english/S/p017.html)



I always thought that Plato had the opinion that humans were good if they are just shown the right way.

We see here this is were it leads, too. "Yea people are good, however we need leaders to keep them good." without explaining who those leaders would be, in his society pretty sure, political types, priests, and the such. (as is today) Aristotle maintained that we r good with out being led, in other words without authority. "that's the way I comprehend it".



Some actually believe that the things we perceive are not to be trusted, while the mind of a newborn is totally blank.

Well in objectivism we accept that new-borns are born blank "tabula raza" empty slate.

One can only assure that one´s self exist in some way. Everything else might just be a fantasy.

This I think, pertains to Confusious, (reality is nothing but an illusion) This is mystical, reality exists wether we are aware of it, or not. On another note, the above statement of yours goes into solipsism. Solipsism is basically irrefutable, however I don't think you are or that I am the only consciousness that everything else is in fact part of my "fantasy" or yours.



Then you could move on to philosophies that do not put great weight on thoughts but rather on deeds. Act so that you only help others, as long as no one else is harmed. It is all abot following the right path, if you learn and gain knowledge you will leave the path and so on.

This has a taste of buddhism, however thought has to come before an action can be taken.

Godless.

Well, yes, the two other philosophies I gave are more or less from asia. That is true, and that was the reason why I said that Plato and Aristotele were probably the most influential western philosophers.

We see here this is were it leads, too. "Yea people are good, however we need leaders to keep them good." without explaining who those leaders would be, in his society pretty sure, political types, priests, and the such. (as is today) Aristotle maintained that we r good with out being led, in other words without authority. "that's the way I comprehend it".

No, Plato rather says that people do not perceive reality in the beginning, they have to be led to the light. Then they are enlighted and are now able to choose between staying this way or going back into their ingorance.
Plato´s idea of a state led by philosphers was only an idea of a perfect state. But this does not connect to the concept that humans are innately evil. They are perhaps innately ignorant.

Dreamwalker,

Where the hell were you in "Philosophy, Get a Life"?


Godless,

As to the debate. Sucks you're going to be taking off so soon, Godless. I myself was in the middle of a move which was part of the reason why I didn't have time to read your references. Now, the move is over and I am now, at this moment, turning to your references to try to see what can be done in here.

I still have the feeling that you are too self-limiting in your views on episomology. That in fact there is a far greater latitude in thought than you are claiming with your words. I realize that words are only words and that you are not completely locked into such a stark viewpoint. But, modes of thought are like traps if one is not careful. You must always step outside and observe from a new angle on occasion. There are always more angles.

I've spoken of limits in calculus before. (Many, many times.) But, I have never made this distinction, I don't think. There are two types of limits (heh. Possibly more than that. I'm an extreme novice in calculus as evidenced by my constant referencing of limits which is one of the first concepts taught.) One type of limit limits towards a number. Another type of limit limits towards infinity. And inward limit and an outward limit.

Keep this in mind when thinking about limiting behavior.

Ok. I'm going to read up on epistomology now. I hope that I can get back here while there is still time for you to make some comments.

Seriously, three days was far too short a time to devote to such a topic, don't you think? A limit of another kind. ;)

Dreamwalker,

Where the hell were you in "Philosophy, Get a Life"?

Why, did I miss something important?

Well I have tonight. That is very limited!. :D

The only other, way to look at epistemology, was brought up sort of by Dreamwalker, And I quote:

You are right, those are two theoretical philosophies, but they are not the only basical ones. Some actually believe that the things we perceive are not to be trusted, while the mind of a newborn is totally blank. This of course reduces the possibilities to find truths, or anything for that part. One can only assure that one´s self exist in some way. Everything else might just be a fantasy.

The concept here would be solipsism. But I don't think that you are the only consciousness or that I'm the only consciousness, and everything else is fantasy.

Anyhow I'm a high school drop out, I don't understand "calculous, geometry, or what have you, I've hard enough time with plain old Algebra".

I always ment to buy Bertrand Russel's book on "Philosophy of Mathematics " I bet that would be a good read.

I have an open mind, however (philosphycally) I only see two realities. That of "higher truths" or objective sensations. I don't believe in higher truths, this to me is mystical, and it promotes the idealism of gods, devils and the such. I mostly come from the school of Aristotelian logic. (Blame that on Ayn Rand n Neo-Tech) Both claim that Aristotle is the base of their philosophy.

Now armed with the weapon of "reason" I can take value, from any other alternative view, as long is their is logic to it.

Dreamwalker, I didnt study Plato as much I only read some of his work, "the republic" But;
Plato rather says that people do not perceive reality in the beginning

I would buy that, for a child is born "tabula raza" however when a child reaches the age of three, he/she is aware of his/her reality. Though I would admit mostly ingnorant. As Aristotle points out we learn by our experiences, the experience of a three year old is incalculable, however short that time has been, her/his parents tought right from wrong, and she/he discovered forms by her/his own mind, later she/he learnt that the form had "identity" for now he/she knows what a table is. This child will never in her/his life be ignorant of a table, they will all through out their life understand what a table is. They have no way of being ingnorant of that. So:

Then they are enlighted and are now able to choose between staying this way or going back into their ingorance.

This contradicts logic. One can't be ignorant of past knowledge learnt as a child, that child by the age of three knows what a table is, and can't be ingnorant of the fact ever again. Unless he/she has a mental problem, in which case this does not pertain to her/his volition.


Plato´s idea of a state led by philosphers was only an idea of a perfect state. But this does not connect to the concept that humans are innately evil. They are perhaps innately ignorant.

Look deeper, Plato's idealism was used, to (not that he himself said so)
And I quote: (There is little coincidence, then, that St. Augustine easily converted Plato's "Forms" into ideas in God's mind when Christianity was introduced. Plato wasn't far from saying the same thing. In his dialogue, the Timaeus, Plato describes how the universe began in a state of chaos, but was rearranged into a certain degree of order by a god-like figure, the demiurge. Thus for Plato, mind -- be it the mind of the creator, or the intellectual realm of the forms -- is the operative metaphysical concept.) Thus laters from origins of his philosophy men were led to believe that they are inherently evil, and that their soul's need saving.

This is why I claim Plato the father of mysticism.

I got the quote from here: Ayn Rand vs. Plato (http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/plato.html)

Godless.

Anyhow I'm a high school drop out, I don't understand "calculous, geometry, or what have you, I've hard enough time with plain old Algebra".

Me too. The dropout part. Geometry and Algebra were relatively easy. I made it to trig in school. Learning calculus off the net. Haven't made it all the way through before being distracted.

Limits are a relatively easy concept to understand, but I don't have time to explain right now, unfortunately.

Think of it this way. 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, etc... This series of numbers is limiting towards a number but it's never going to get there. You can always cut it a little closer. Infinite numbers between two numbers.

About me reading up on Epistomology. I lied. I got distracted today and didn't get very far.

How about this. When you come back, we'll start this argument up again? I'll dig into it in the interim and we'll have a knockdown dragout when you get back.

Too little time. Too much to learn.

However, this little thread of yours just might get jacked. One never knows how these things will work out.

Good luck in Vegas. Don't get the gambling bug.