A Catalogue of Epistemologies

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Part 1

By epistemology, I mean a criterion of knowledge, what qualifications one believes in and uses to discern fact from fiction, which I think is close to the common meaning of the word, and even if it isn’t, I’m making the word my own, as my definitions serve my agenda. I’m the master of the words I use, the words I use are not the master of me. What’ I’m attempting to do here is largely twofold. 1. Demonstrate that epistemology is far, far more complex than just a choice betwixt rationalism and empiricism. 2. Epistemology isn’t merely something technical that philosophers and occasionally scientists debate, discuss and employ, it’s something we all do in our day to day lives, largely without being aware, so without further adieu -

Firstly, there’s two functions of epistemology, what I call Conceptualism and Gnosticism (not to be confused with the religion by the same name). Conceptualists (those who specialize in conceptualizing) can’t tell us anything we’re not already fairly familiar with about the world, which is not to say they can’t have theories about what might be out there, which is not to say they can make educated guesses and inferences (extrapolating the known), it’s just that they have no means of turning their educated guesses into falsifiable hypotheses, unless they step out into the world or a laboratory, conduct experiments and make observations, at which point they’d cease being merely Conceptualists.
The Conceptualists busy themselves with the refinement of words, concepts and categories, making them more consistent, concise and easier for others to apply. Compiling information, organizing it, rather than informing us, kind of like what I’m attempting to do here, or assisting us in viewing things from a different angle, a new perspective on old things.
This is part of what separates philosophy from science, in addition to their subject matter - philosophy being more preoccupied with metaphysics, the internal and social worlds, science being more preoccupied with physics, the external and natural worlds, philosophy with cultivating the mind and people, science with cultivating the body, things and places.
While both philosophers and scientists are individualistic and utilitarian in their approach and employ rational as opposed to intuitive (religion and sorcery) methods, one specializes in conceptualizing, deconceptualizing and reconceptualizing people, places and things (uncovering), and emphasizes reason contra observation and experimentation, the other specializes in discovering brand new things about the world (discovering), and emphasizes observation and experimentation contra reason. Philosophy is to science what religion is to sorcery, philosophy stands together with science in opposition to religion and sorcery, their respective opposites.

Part 2A

Now that we got the dichotomy between the Conceptualizing and… Gnosticism out of the way, in addition to the dichotomies between philosophy and religion, science and sorcery, all 4 of which are bundles of epistemological disciplines and practices rather than specific epistemological disciplines and practices, let’s turn our attention to specific epistemologies -

Firstly, I’d like to distinguish epistemological utilitarians from epistemological… deontologists (a quantitative distinction)? For utilitarians, knowledge is something practical, it isn’t something we accumulate for its own sake. If it has no practical value, if it can’t make us happier or give us mastery ourselves or nature, then it should be discarded. For deontologists, knowledge isn’t just a means to an end, it’s an end in and of itself, the more we know about the world, regardless of whether a piece of information can immediately be put to use or not, or even if it’s eternally useless, the better.
There’s epistemological hedonists and epistemological ascetics (a qualitative distinction) - epistemological hedonists believe in things largely because they make them feel happy or pleasant, epistemological utilitarians believe in things largely based on whether they’re true or false. Of course no one could wholly or even nearly wholly practice one or the other in their day to day lives, especially the former for any length of life, one could practice them wholly or nearly wholly in their profession, if say they’re a “prophet” in the case of the former or a scientist in the case of the latter.
Then there’s epistemological individualists and epistemological collectivists (another qualitative distinction). Epistemological individualists primarily rely on their own judgments rather than on the judgments of others. Epistemological collectivists… just the reverse. At this point I should say that each and everyone of us is a mixture of these two extremes rather than exclusively one or the other, though the vast majority have a tendency to employ one more than the other. We all have our preferences, regardless of when and where we acquired them, whether primarily from mother nature or father nurture (nurture meaning not only domestication and socialization, but our lifelong personal interactions with and interpretations of the world). Additionally, some may also not be able to employ some as well others, it’s not merely a matter of will. I think that’s pretty commonsensical, eh?
Traditionalism - old truth is truer than new truth… pretty straightforward, its other being Prometheanism (new truth is truer than…).

Part 2B

In addition to the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, there’s a variety of epistemological collectivisms, the three most prominent being - popularism (quantitative) - whatever’s true is whatever’s popular/i’m with stupid, logical authoritarianism - i’m with the experts - professors, professionals - doctors regarding medical matters, lawyers regarding legal matters, scientists regarding scientific matters, and so on (pretty hard to do with philosophers since we can never seem to get them to agree on anything), and finally illogical authoritarianism - my president, my king, my pope, the movers and shakers, the guy with the biggest hat, etc.

Part 2C

There’s also a variety of faculties we can employ, the three most prominent being reason (rationalism), emotion (intuitionism), the five senses (empiricism, observation and experimentation, which could also be a dichotomy giving us a quadripartite rather than a tripartite division, one may emphasize observation over experimentation and vice versa), that correspond roughly with Plato’s tripartite division of the soul,

Part 2D

Lastly there’s spiritual (or as I define the word, the blurring of the lines between fantasy and reality, or that which is can never be, or presently can’t be falsified, and doesn’t even qualify as an educated or intelligent guess, yet is believed in anyway for various motivations ranging from insanity to stupidity, or fantastic interactions and interpretations which are largely or wholly private and cannot or presently cannot be rationally confirmed or denied by the vast majority people) vs. material epistemologies (material being just the reverse of the above definition of spiritual).
Supernatural epistemologies come in all shapes and sizes, just as natural epistemologies do. For example, take our three primary innate faculties and their corresponding epistemologies. I could claim I have extrasensory perception, (as well) as omnipresence or extra-presence, if you’d be so kind, and that these unique abilities or the unique exercise of these mundane abilities, permits me to observe and experiment with far, far more reality than what’s supposed to be possible, thus lending me extraordinary knowledge of and insight into the world. I could also claim that I’m far more rational and intuitive than the average, supernaturally so, or that I rely on someone for discernment who purportedly possesses these extraordinary powers of perception, intuition and intelligence.
(Another example, take the three collectivist epistemologies, I could say I rely on God, or I could say I rely on a democracy of Angels or enlightened entities that communicated with me personally or with someone I know or with someone I know of who wrote a book, for all of my knowledge and wisdom, you see you can combine these in all sorts of ways man never has or typically doesn’t.)

Part 3

Rather than seeing them opposed, I see them as specializing in different functions of the human mind. in other words, they are, and they should be viewed as fundamentally complementary rather than antagonistic. This itself is a doctrine, I shall call it epistemological compatibilism as opposed to incompatibilism which is what most people adhere to, especially philosophers for some odd reason.

Theoretically, some of them could be combined in various ways to form brand new epistemological specializations, practices and disciplines. This is not meant to be a complete list, as knowledge and understanding are forever incomplete, rather, this is sufficient for me for the time being, probably far more elaborate than most of you are willing to put up with.

In the end, I have my preferences, for some over others, and these preferences and abilities (I’m more rational than intuitive, though that’s merely likely because I exercise the former more than latter) are partly natural and partly informed by other people and my anticipations and expectations of future experiences. That’s right, we judge the judges, we critique epistemologies, sometimes we critique an epistemology with another epistemology (my intuition is telling me not to go with my intellect, or my intuition is telling me to go with my intellect, my friends told me to consult the experts, you get the picture) or even with the same epistemology.

Additionally, Epistemologies yield results, some more than others, depending on the individual, the society and the environment we find ourselves in. Rather than preferring one absolutely over another, like an idiot who believes his hands are superior to his feet in all circumstances, contexts, predicaments and situations.
I’m all for a variety of epistemologies and epistemological groupings competing and collaborating with one another in a free market, which is not to say I believe they’re all absolutely equal in value, either, and I’m for a philosophical reevaluation of epistemologies as opposed to confining ourselves to one of two, namely, rationalism and empiricism. Of course these two are closest to philosophy for a reason, but existence is so much more complex than that, and I believe we’re becoming sufficiently sophisticated to deal with ever increasing levels of intellectual complexity, as our society develops, if we merely apply ourselves, do away with the achievements of past intellectuals, and dare to think bold new thoughts, bearing in mind new is not necessarily the same as, random, or disorderly, as some believe.

As a society, we also have our preferences, we prefer some and epistemologies and some combinations of epistemologies to others. In my view, if any has won out in our society, it’s probably science (btw, which is, at least in theory, a gnostic as opposed to a conceptualist, a hoarder of information as opposed to a utilitarian, an ascetic as opposed to hedonistic, a collectivist as opposed to an individualist, a traditionalist as opposed to Promethean, an empirical, rational and intuitive epistemological bundle in that order, so science is composed of many principles, even more than the ones I’ve listed here I’m sure) surely not philosophy, philosophy is behind religion even, far behind, the masses, politicians and economists don’t give a flying fuck about philosophy, even many philosophers and many people interested in philosophy don’t hold it in very high esteem and regard. Hopefully we can change that.

One final word, skepticism and nihilism, would be professing ignorance on epistemological matters. Existentialism when taken epistemologically would mean that we’re free to choose, I suppose, that none is really assigned to us by anyone or anything. Pragmatism would be close to compatibilism as it tends to employ whatever yields results, results not necessarily being limited to what’s strictly true or false.

2

I feel that your thoughts here are very well expressed and have an excellent quality about them. To note about specialization, every specialization is a risk. If a man spends his life trying to become a lawyer, when he should have been on the basketball court practicing his jump shot, then he is potentially wasting his time, energy, money, and effort. Some people are naturally better in other roles. If a person rejects specialization, or specializes in the “wrong” or inefficient type, then he or she may have wasted a lot of valuable time in life.

The mystery about specialization, is connecting it to genetics or nature. How do we determine which types of individuals, ought to be epistemologically compatiblists or incompatiblists? We need an identifier of some kind, to properly delineate which people belong in which types of specialization, both physically and mentally.

3

I edited, just so you’re aware. Cleaned it up.

You’ve made an important contribution here. Yes, it could be turned into a typological indicator of sorts, reminiscent of Enneagram or MBTI for personality. An epistemological typological indicator, one could be done for metaphysics and ethics as well. Also, it could not only test for only preferences, which epistemology do you prefer,but as you say,for ability,then everyone would have a better idea of where they themselves stand,where everyone else stands,and where to proceed from there.

The idea here would be a balance between balance and imbalance, on the one hand it’s good to stand out, to diverge, on the other hand it’s equally good to be versatile. Too balanced and you become boring, indecisive and mediocre, too extreme, and you become too dependent on one ability or trait. It would be interesting to test other faculties like intuition, or what I call auditory-temporal (as opposed to visual-spatial) besides the usual in an iQ test, as well as which faculties you prefer. iQ tests require far more complexity, for example, there’s creative intelligences, intelligence isn’t just about finding patterns within complexity, but creating patterns. There’s so much here, it can be overwhelming. What about psychological intelligence, know thyself, know others? Intuition would consist of problems that’re too complex and come at you too fast for reason to sit back and coldly and calculatedly sort out all the information and come to a definite conclusion. There could also be a test to see whether you’re better at conceptualizing, playing around with ideas, like we do in philosophy, or applying ideas to our conceptualizations to the world.

The economy has been consolidated, information is the final frontier. There can only be one. One that could encompass them all, would have a better chance.

4

Do we create reality, is reality but a noise we impose meaning and definition on? That’s what the intuitionist and the nihilist would have us believe, the two go hand in hand, intuitionism and nihilism, like rationalism with somethingism.

5

You didn’t explain gnosticism.

6

Eyes, this is by far the best post I’ve ever read on ILP. I’ll respond to this appropriately, when I can afford some time.

7

=D>

Eyes, you are obviously the best and highest quality philosopher to ever grace this forum. You have the authority, integrity, wisdom, creativity, and courage to dictate language, and own concepts. You are highly respectable and very insightful. You are a breath of fresh air. This is not intended to only compliment you and bloat your well justified sense of egotism, but, to reflect the higher quality of work and performance you’ve demonstrated here.

My interpretation of epistemology is as follows, to compare our differences. From my perspective, epistemology has three parts. Its core is material knowledge itself, reflected by genes, memes, and brain chemistry. Then there is the discernment process, between fact and fiction. Thirdly, there is generalization of ideologies. For example, I’d say that the political ideology of capitalism reflects a set of epistemological values, principles, and premises. The same is true for science, religion, or philosophy. Any generalized ideology is epistemological, insofar as they reflect some type of accumulated “human” knowledge.

An ontological epistemology is just the whole existence of human history, and human knowledge, from the beginning of the human specie, to its future end. Ontology and epistemology, combined, I define as “all human potential possible and imaginable”. So all of epistemology, or the holistic nature of espitemology, is also ontological, a perfect and absolute completion, from teleological “beginning and ending” of human existence. All human existence, as a specie, reflects all human knowledge. This is mostly objective historical ism. By cataloguing human existence, history is formed. And history tracks epistemology and its derivatives.

Philosophers are an essential part of tracking these fragmentations, and unifications, of epistemology.

Is this correct?

Philosophy is to religion,
What science is to sorcery.

Epistemological utilitarianism is knowledge for the sake of utility.
Epistemological deonotology is knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Therefore, epistemological deonotology represents a pathological, obsessive-compulsion to acquire knowledge, like an avid book reader or information hoarder. Essentially, the epistemological deonotologist is a statitician. He is fascinated by statistics, numbers, data, and records. He is a bookkeeper type. This is specific psychological predisposition.

Epistemological hedonism is knowledge for the sake of pleasure. The epistemological hedonist believes in falsities, sometimes, simply for the sake of pleasure. These are a pleasing lies, necessary lies, like telling somebody you love and care for them, when you necessarily don’t. The epistemological hedonist prefers the pleasurable lie over the cruel truth and harsh reality. But, both sides represent a type of knowledge about the world, and that is the knowledge of pleasure, its utility and value. Epistemological hedonists will know which types of knowledge are most pleasing, and for most people.

Epistemological hedonists are religious fanatics, who find the healing power of faith, or drug users who experiment with different substances. All of the knowledge derived from experiences, add to the hedonist’s repertoire of pleasurable information.

Will you talk more about epistemological asceticism, like a restricted approach to epistemology, and the way people “ought” to approach knowledge? You mentioned that scientists are epistemological ascetics? You may have written epistemological utilitarian on accident? The epistemological ascetic is concerned with true and false knowledge?

It seems pretty obvious to me which pathological types lean toward which side, regarding epistemological individualism and collectivism. It’s very easy for me, an epistemological individualist, to spot epistemological collectivists, and reject them accordingly. Often times I need to catch myself, and halt my prejudice, because I tend to detest and hate epistemological collectivists. I need to rebuke myself, my compulsion, and understand that many people simply are this way, and it’s genetic and biological. There’s nothing I can do about it.

Some people simply need to, psychologically, copy other people and leech onto other people’s production of knowledge. However, many epistemological collectivists are very specific about which types of knowledge they will copy, want to copy, and can copy. Some epistemologies are too complex to be copied by just anybody, popularly. Some complex forms of knowledge, like advanced mathematics, are therefore, restricted to espitemological individualists. Because only individualists would be interested in the highest complexities of epistemology.

Consider this, consider espitemological complexity and simplicity. The epistemological simpletons, are those only interested in “simple” and easy, knowledge. This is demonstrated by pop culture in the US. Epistemological simpletons want “easy answers only”. A completely superficial epistemology, about “who is wearing what” and “which fashion is hot right now”. 1+1=1 is epistemological simplicity, knowledge for the sake of simplicity.

Pretentious college dwellers and academics, confining themselves in academia, desire knowledge for the sake of complexity. They love the “ten dollar words”, and use complex terminology to fool other people, in thinking that they’re much smarter than they actually are. These are the types of men and women who dress like hipsters, and form fads around specific social events. They’re interested in “complex” knowledge, to impress other people, mainly. The epistemological individualist, a mathematician in advanced, theoretical quantum math, can also be claimed to be an epistemological complexor, because he has to endure complexity for the sake of his specialization.

The same is true for rocket scientists and brain surgeons.

I’d like to hear more about these!

The contheorist, conspiracy theorists, are a great example of supernatural epistemology. Gobbo, for one, is an epistemological complexor, who demands complexity instead of simplicity. His contheories demand that the questions and answers are “too complex” to know. But, a contheorist can be an epistemological simpleton too.

Philosophers tend to “fragment” and break apart epistemology. Religiosos tend to “unify” and bring together epistemology.

So one side is breaking knowledge apart, the other side is putting it back together, destroying and building, doubt and faith.

A result based epistemology is more scientific, empirical and utilitarian. I’d presume that is, epistemological utilitarinism?

Epistemological pragmatism seems to fall more in line with “hands are not innately superior or inferior to feet”. Knowledge for the sake of practicality, not utility.

A free market of ideas, that is how I approach philosophy, and you seem to do the same.

Eyes, I think that we should work together on a more specialized philosophy forum, if the opportunity should ever come up. You should become a philosophical leader, not a follower. You deserve a platform and foundation of your own.

Pathological specialization, thinking about certain ideas and rejecting others, is epistemological complexity, not simplicity. Specialization is complex. Unification is simplicity. Epistemological simplicity is more religious, and less philosophical. What is the answer for every question? “God, the end.”

Yes, existentialism presupposes that people can “pick and choose” their epistemology. I disagree with this in a specific sense, that, these epistemologies also reflect distinct pathological types, and brain structures. Some people have brains better fit for other thoughts, in the same way that different bodies are fit for different sports, events, and functions. A soldier, for example, has the genetic and bodily constitution fit for war.

If a man is not fit for murdering other people, then he is an unfit warrior and soldier. A soldier needs to also have the mental strength and pathological trait, able to murder lots of other people, without remorse, sympathy, pity, or care. Otherwise, he may suffer PTSD and commit suicide. A perfect soldier needs to recognize when to kill, for which reasons, why, and when to demonstrate compassion and mercy.

8

Eyes, rununder:

There is no problem with cataloguing epistomologies, however, to pathologise existentialism as an aberration is not warranted by the above argument. It can be said that a return to the content of thought tends to support a return to the objects of though by programatic disassociation from it’s own objectives , hence tending to a cutting away, a bracketing of that content, re affirms a duality.

I disagree generally, since the expediency of the methodology involved in analysis of meaning, as a psychological term, differs from the kind of consistent validity that exists in science.

 You do not have to look far. The existential dawn is exemplified with a correlational paradimn in the advent of the nuclear age, where the epistological totalisms included such cliches as, the peaceful uses of atomic energy.  Notwithstanding cliches, a whole program of nuclear safety had to be developed for decades, to try to insure, that the human element of misuse will not impinge on a purely statistical epistemology.

 Existentialism was not a political expediency, it was a necessity, a reaction to dis tangle the objectives from the objects of thought  in themselves in a post war environment.  Literally, everyone with any sense realized not only the irrationality of war, but the development of acute dangers associated with technological developments which sprang up on a quantum level.  While human social thought paced away nicely linearly, the evolution of psychology as becoming a legitimate science needed no more justification.

 Whether such qualifications may be made, or whether, we can justify to make them, has reached a level of uncertainty, that came to need a containment, where critical functions having been removed from their content, had to be accounted for.

 The mere fact that Jung was institutionalized is no. Valid demonstration of the invalidation of Gnosis, the same way.  The Gnosis, as the new deeper layer of the content, had become significant, whether we like it or not, even if, the same methodology can not cover it's underlying principles.  Humanities did become estranged from technology, but only because previously, technological epistemology needed no cover, control, and safeguard.

So I would classify an eidectic reduction as a socially deterministic movement in it. Self, and any effort to negate it would be objected within it's own ground.  In psychology they call it projective identification.
9

I’ll respond to everyone tomorrow night.

10

Shit, sorry 'bout that, the power went out where I’m from.

11

Thanks. Gnosticism is the opposite of Conceptualism. Where as conceptualism is about creating, destroying and maintaining the ideas we use to categorize and classify things, Gnosticism is their application, using them to describe real phenomena in the world. Conceptualism is about compiling and organizing old information, making it more comprehensive, consistent and concise, making it more meaningful and relevant. Gnosticism is about acquiring new information. Philosophy and science employ both, but philosophy emphasizes the former and science the latter. Of course neither need be wholly one or the other. Conceptualism is about the definition, deconstruction and redefinition of ideas and ideals, words and terms themselves, Gnosticism is their application. I was thinking of calling Gnosticism Applicationism, to distinguish it from the religion. This isn’t the only distinction between philosophy and science, for example philosophy is more individualistic than science, and when it does attempt to describe real phenomena out there, it makes inferences and rationalizations as opposed to experimenting and observing first, then commenting.

12

Thank you.

13

Post sript & errata; jung himself was never institutionalized. His institualization was the the institution of his ideas. His mother spent some time in an institution. Sorry.

14

Thanks, and I appreciate your virtues as well.

Go on…

From what I gather, to put it into words and terms I use, you mean to say raw or nearly raw empirical, sensual data, information… or perhaps you mean to say the ideas, ideals, words and terms (concepts), in addition to the knowledge (things in themselves) and understanding (relational knowledge) given to us by our genetics, mimetics and neurology. In other words, our default categories, knowledge and understanding of the world, we inherit from our biology and culture. What we have here is the epistemology of women, children and slaves.

To reiterate, concepts differ from knowledge, the difference between them is as the difference between words and names. concepts are like words, knowledge is like names, or yet another way of putting it is, universals and particulars. philosophy concerns itself largely with the former. Then, rather than calling It conceptualism vs. Gnosticism or Applicationism, perhaps, universalism vs. particularism would be more appropriate. Philosophers should invent some of their own words and terms.

Our biology (in the form of intuition) and culture comes equipped with a set of universals and particulars. Women, children and slaves inherit and adhere to them largely without question or complaint. When women and children rebel, it’s not normally because they’ve analyzed their cultural norms rationally and found them wanting, but because there’s a conflict between their intuition, their passion and cultural norms. Instinct has won the day.

Right, and that I presume is where individuality, rationalism, empiricism, philosophy and science make their appearance, to reevaluate our twofold epistemological inheritance, the biological intuition of infants and babes, and the social norms of childhood and early adolescence. What we have here is the epistemology of late adolescence and young men. Young men (some more than others) begin to critique their social norms. Many, however, remain children all their lives.

For some, this critique leads to a more/less rational reaffirmation of existing morals and dogma. They become the mature conservatives of their day, upholding traditional morals and dogmas For others, relativism, skepticism or nihilism at first, then pure intuitionism, returning to the primordial epistemological state of infants and babes, as nature abhors a vacuum. For others, such rigorous and unrelenting rational critique of their former cherished social norms is more than they can bear, leading to homicide or suicide, or convenient excuse to commit homicide or suicide. I believe this is what contributed to Abstract’s untimely demise. Others are able to persevere, climb out of the depths of relativism, skepticism and nihilism, building a firmer, more solid foundation, self-serving and rational foundation for new morals and values, knowledge, wisdom and understanding.

There you have it, five fundamental ways young men of courage and intellect deal with the problem of relativism, skepticism and nihilism, a problem given to them by the rapid maturation of their brains. Some come to reaffirm the epistemological and ethical principles of their youth on more/less rational grounds (the conservatives), some completely deconstruct them, falling back on their base impulses for guidance (intuitionism), which are now infused with heavy doses of testosterone, occasionally leading to disorganized criminality. Some commit suicide (the outcome of profound, long-lasting relativism, skepticism and nihilism… particularly nihilism), and lastly, some find alternative values, either by adopting someone else’s values, a guru, philosopher or scientist outside of their tradition, or more rare, by becoming their own guru. All of these paths come about because some young men dare to question traditional mores, knowledge, understanding and wisdom. In the west, we have a strong tradition of rejecting tradition, so much so that individualism, rationalism, empiricism, philosophy and science have been institutionalized - a kind of ongoing, permanent rebellion against the status quo.

Right, the above two meta-epistemologies can be combined and/or codified in various ways for mass consumption and dissemination. Your classification scheme is very interesting, may I propose a fourth to add in between the 2nd and the 3rd? After the 2nd, after one has succeeded in building his own morals, values, knowledge, wisdom and understanding on a more self-serving and rational basis, one may begin to impart one’s beliefs to others, as someone who’s boldly stared nihilism in the face and lived to tell the tale, or as someone who’s never had the courage, as an unthinking repeater of their cultural inheritance, a little older and only marginally, largely superficially wiser than the children he means to teach.

Yes, your schematic is more historically based and synthetic than my own, what I’ve attempted to do in my lengthy commentary is to combine my more ahistorical, compartmentalized and detailed approach with your own.

Indeed.

I believe it is.

You got it.

Yes, the word asceticism can be a misleading, as it makes it sound as if my epistemic ascetic is a minimalist when it comes to accumulating knowledge, when he’s merely concerned with the truth or falsehood of knowledge as opposed to the hedonistic, fantasy prone imperative. I need new names for these four, so nevermind utilitarian, deontologist, hedonist and ascetic. Instead I’m going to call them the theoretician (knowledge for the sake of knowledge, concerned with abstract, descriptive knowledge and hypotheticals far removed from ordinary daily affairs) vs. the pragmatist (knowledge for the sake of utility, practical knowledge or wisdom), the fanatic (belief for the sake pleasure, delusion, fantasy, spirituality) vs. the factualist (belief for the sake of truth). There, I gave them more epistemic appropriate names rather than ethical names in order so that we may avoid confusion.

Yes and there’s nothing inherently wrong with it either, it evolved for a reason, which is why it’s so widespread. A human child, being neither as well physically developed as an animal child, an adult human, nor possessing instincts as acute as those of animal children, must depend on his guardians for guidance. He has no other option, and instinctively seeks them out, though it’s constant struggle between the need to satisfy his primeval drives to defecate, urinate, explore and play as he pleases. Morons, those with low or even average IQs, predominant in the serf classes we belong to, have no choice but to continue exhibiting some or even all of this childlike behaviors. Others, possessing intelligence but little courage, nerve, choose to adhere to and uphold the status quo at all costs. Some delight in being disobedient and thinking for themselves, whether they have a whole brain, or even if they have only half. Rather than hate them, one could be more pragmatic and make use of them. These people can’t be persuaded by argument alone, what they need is an authority figure, someone with wealth, power, or even a poor man with charisma, charm and a domineering personality, qualities which one must hone and foster if one desires to conquer such men.

Yes, these creatures typically find one philosopher or a school of philosophy to latch onto, Stoicism, Empiricism, Physicalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, Anarchism, Existentialism, Relativism and Nihilism, Marxists, Nietzscheans and Randists are some popular ones, or a science (I say a science because I’m beginning to believe science may not be as monolithic as it appears to be), or a religion. They’re not themselves, they’re representatives of someone or something else, or they find themselves in it somehow, which is fine by me. It’s usually one, it has something to do with the same reason why it’s always one king, or pope, or president. There can only be one, it’s because they have a primordial pack mentality (alpha, beta and omega), and it’s because they can’t hold two ideas in their head at once without lapsing into a coma or seizure… without frying their brains and short-circuiting… so whatever one they latch onto has to be the only one, usually it’s one that appeals to them aesthetically, like my epistemic fanatics, or the one they inherited from their guardians, like my traditionalists. It doesn’t have to be a cult, ideology, philosophy, science or religion, it could even be a lifestyle, like “emo”, “hipsters” or “gangstas”, it’s really quite funny. Some may simply adopt a few articles of the lifestyle or “scene” and then move on, others may follow them quite zealously.

True.

Good point, perhaps your simpletons could be partly subsumed by my epistemic pragmatists.

Basically they combine intuitionism with authoritarian collectivism as opposed to combining rationalism with authoritarian collectivism, which gets you logical authoritarian collectivism, or people who tend to follow people with meaningful credentials (I’m a professor of sociobiology at Stanford, and I have an iQ 186, so if you want to know more about sociobiology…) as opposed to the guy with the phallic shaped hat.

The idea is for the mortar to be largely rational as opposed to fideistic.

Good point, my epistemic compatibilism could be partly or wholly subsumed within what I formerly called epistemic utilitarianism and what I now call pragmatism (bear with me). I’d like to redefine compatibilism by saying, it doesn’t just select whatever epistemology works on the basis of utility, rather, it’s the belief that all of them are valuable in their own right, even fanaticism (formerly known as hedonism). The idea is to find the right mix of them all, for the right person and the right society, rather than rigidly adhering to one for all people, times and places. It’s not the same as relativism, as relativism is simply anything goes, instead an individual or a society may not be employing the right mix of epistemologies for them, and it may be possible for another individual or society to demonstrate this to another, using various epistemic methods. Finding the right balance of yin and yang, sort of speak, which is both subjective and an objective and hence demonstrable undertaking.

Agreed, perhaps I’ll, or we’ll found our own forum someday. I’m not finished here by the way, I’m still trying to make my thoughts on epistemology more comprehensive.

Yes, I like the idea of different online and offline institutions, each one promoting their own epistemic methodology and the knowledge they’ve accumulated with it and competing for adherents. Of course we have this today, but it’s mainly science, science and more science. Additionally, mainline science has cornered the market by merging with the corporate state, giving it an unfair advantage, much as Catholicism enjoyed an unfair advantage during the medieval era. So much for free markets and individualism. It no longer matters whether you believe in evolution and primordial salad or not, it no longer matters whether it’s true or not, it’ll be shoveled down your throat like so much shit, in either case. Either we should have a free market of epistemic methodologies, or, if there can be only one, it should be one that’s a little more, holistic. I’d like to formulate my own epistemic methodology, neither philosophy, religion, science or sorcery. Likely it’ll be more indebted to philosophy than the others.

Rather than one being right and the others being wrong, it all depends on what you’re attempting to accomplish. Each one has benefits and detriments as ends and as means. The idea is to find one or, found one that complements your society, but it needn’t be the only, just as a man needs all of his faculties to make sense of the world, not just his reason but his intuition, his observations and experimentations, input from others, input from tradition, etc, so too does a society. Rather than starting our own epistemic methodology and then competing with others like science, religion and zeteticism, the idea could be to incorporate them all, science and religion, and everything in between and outside the two, into one versatile epistemic methodology embodied in an institution. Its primary virtue being versatility, it could be rational when need be and intuitional when need be, it could be observational when need be and experimental when need be. It could have a rational and an intuitive wing, even, and an individualist and collectivist wing, and a rational individual wing, and a intuitive collectivist wing, and a rational collectivist wing, and an intuitive collectivist wing, and so on. A test to applicants could be administered to determine which wing they will become a member of. Something that would incorporate and institutionalize all the epistemic methods we use to make sense of the world, the institutional embodiment of the human mind. I suppose it needn’t be so stratified… but something broader than we’re used to.

It reminds of me Empedocles’ bizarre account of human and animal evolution. First he said there were arms without hands and legs without feet, eyes without heads and heads without ears. Then, gradually, they went from isolationism and competing with one another into an assembly, so that the first man and woman was formed. Individually, unless you’re an amputee or you’ve been lobotomized, we’re all holistic human beings, which is not to say we don’t have our abilities, disabilities and preferences. However, everything is compartmentalized in society, so that one institution operates independently of the other, believing man only requires a religion, he doesn’t require a science, or vice versa, or he only requires a science, he doesn’t require a philosophy. He only requires pleasure, hedonism. He only requires virtue, stoicism, and on and on it goes.

Could it be that we’re all compartmentalized, and that the conservatives just don’t know what the hell the progressives are up to, don’t really care to know and vice versa, are we still stuck in some early stage of sociological evolution, or have I been smoking too much hash again? No, I think I’m onto something here. We have to overcome our epistemic and ethical schizophrenia, compartmentalization and alienation, I think, if we wish to evolve as a species. It’s not that I’m against specialization, it’s just that specialists should be communicating more with one another, there should be mediators, not merely between one branch of science and another, but between philosophy, science and religion, and various other epistemic methods, they should all be represented and harmonized somehow, within each individual and within each society.

I couldn’t agree more, I’m hardly an existentialist, which is not say I completely disagree with it, either. Man has a nature, a neurological makeup encoded in his DNA, which is unique to each individual, effecting his epistemic and ethical judgments.

Agreed.

15

Looks like there are various definition of Gnosticism. The definition Jung, et.al. Uses, is simply one of spirituality. Biology, memes and brain chemistry, is a point of view of looking at knowledge in the expected way of de-objectivating systems which do not adhere to an epistemology of containment (emergence), self realization,and reification in terms of possibilities. The dis allowing an alternate definition (spirituality) does not allow the view, that. A disqualification of non verifiable phenomenon, on the basis of a hypothetical, forgets the fact, that gnosis came about as a result of inquiry innovated from the idea, that the known can never completely incorporate the unknown. Knowledge is limited, as per the functional inadequacy of man’s innate ideas. Knowledge per functional as utilitarian, pragmatic is always dependent upon the variable unknown x’s. Therefore a total epistemology in this sense is just as much a hypothetical of the total containment of the idea of absolute knowledge, as is it’s pre supposition.

 I do agree in  a catalogue of epistomologies is verifiable in it's use, but it is only through descriptive use.  This point is very arguable from either points of view, and in my opinion, does not consist of either a total, existential either/or. Supposition.  More than likely it's two different ways knowing, of gnosis.
16

List of epistemologies expressed by the Wise Eyesinthelight,

Epistemological Utilitarianism v Epistemological Deonotology

Epistemological Hedonism v Epistemological Asceticism

Epistemological Individualism v Epistemological Collectivism

Epistemological Supernaturalism v Epistemological Naturalism

Epistemological Simplicity v Epistemological Complexity

Epistemological Utilitarianism => Epistemological Pragmatism => Epistemological Compatibalism

Are these accurate, eyes?

17

Close, you’re missing a few.

The first one you’re missing is Conceptualism vs. Gnosticism. I’m thinking of calling it Theoreticalism vs. Practicalism. Conceptualism or Theoreticalism is about defining and redefining concepts words and terms, Gnosticism or Practicalism is about applying them in order to attain actual knowledge about the world. Theoreticism asks - Are our concepts, words and terms coherent, internally consistent, correspondent (are they likely to correspond with anything out in the world) and relevant. Practicism is about their application. Theoreticism asks what is it that we’re looking for, Practicism goes out and finds it. Theoreticism is about our models of the world, Practicism is about the world. Coherence is Theoreticism’s primary concern, correspondence is Practicism’s.

The 2nd one you missed is the 3 faculties, reason (Rationalism), intuition (Intuitionism), and observation/experimentation (Empiricism), it’s a trichotomy. The faculties correspond with the 3 primary parts of our psyche, Plato’s tripartite division of the soul and Freud’s ego, superego and id. I don’t much care for Freud’s terms, I prefer Plato’s logos, ethos and pathos.

The 3rd one you missed is Prometheanism vs. Traditionalism (neognosis vs. paleognosis).

You mentioned this one, but it’s a another trichotomy, individualism (each one of us is our own authority) and two forms of collectivism, democratic (herd epistemology) and aristocratic (pack epistemology, which has different expressions, depending on what other epistemologies are in play).

The very last one you mentioned, I’m thinking of changing it around a little, as it seems flawed. I’d say the last one is about whether we can actually obtain knowledge and an understanding of the world, rather than about how or why we obtain knowledge and an understanding of the world, which is what the others are about. So the others ask how or why, means and ends, the last one puts them together and asks do we have the means to achieve our ends? It’s about their effectiveness. The last quinchotomy is Dogmatism (some epistemologies are absolutely more useful than others), Syncretism (some epistemologies are relatively more useful than others), Skepticism (it’s difficult or impossible to say), relativism (they’re all equally useful) and nihilism (they’re all equally useless). You could say I’m partly a dogmatist and partly a syncretist, how about you?

Here’s a revised list -

? -

Epistemological Theoreticism v Epistemological Practicism

Why do you know -

Epistemological Hedonism v Epistemological Asceticism

Epistemological Utilitarianism v Epistemological Deonotology

How do you know -

Epistemological Individualism v Epistemological Democracy v Epistemological Aristocracy (sociological components).

Epistemological Empiricism v Epistemological Intuitionism v Epistemological Rationalism (psychological components).

Epistemological Traditionalism v Epistemological Prometheanism (time, if there’s one regarding time, how long has x been believed, maybe there should be one regarding space, how widespread x is believed… but then that’d overlap with epistemological democracy, so?).

Epistemological Naturalism v Epistemological Supernaturalism (ordinary v extraordinary).

The last one is an overview of how strongly believe in epistemologies as a whole, rather than which particular epistemology you prefer/trust.

Epistemological Dogmatism, Syncretism, Skepticism, Relativism, Nihilism.

It’s a work in progress, lately I’ve been more focused on metaphysics than epistemology.