Ontology, epistemology, & X

If ontology is the requirement that what we believe correspond to something in reality (grounding), and epistemology is how we show with various kinds of reasons why we believe it is grounded in reality, then what is it called when we are weighing/comparing competing theories for something we have good reason (justification/epistemology) to believe exists (is grounded) in reality? Is it just more epistemology/justification? A subcategory of it? Something entirely different? Where does arguing to or from first principles fit into all of that?

Is ā€œontologyā€ the better term to use for the reasons we believe something is grounded in reality? Is that arguing to first principles? Should the word ā€œepistemologyā€ be reserved for the comparison of competing theories for the best way to describe what we have grounded? Is that arguing from first principles? Do we need/have a third term besides ontology and epistemology?

If ontology is metaphysics, and epistemology is ethics, then what ā€œ____logyā€ is aesthetics (perhaps given one can create/choose/believe/hypothesize/etc toward the eternal—set this aside if it blocks you from seeing the third thing)?

revelation ~ metaepistemology

So you would say Kierkegaard’s leap is in response to revelation?

Can we prefer metaaesthetics? Kierkegaard would say it is a teleological suspension of the ethical, rather than meta, no? I think I would disagree with him on that. I don’t think it suspends anything… I think it goes beyond. Christ came to fulfill, not abolish. But maybe I am misrepresenting Kierkegaard and not fully understanding him. He did write ā€œworks of loveā€ after all.

metaesthetics is not an ology nm

maybe the word is just teleology

They are words, and the leap can not be constructed through, (&) in, themselves through words, all though in the beginning…

Bi the way

Let’s go with good wizard until proven otherwise lol.

Let’s but it may not turn out to be children’s play, but nevertheless , one should play along…

There are certain games I avoid no matter the cost. If you want me to play you’re gonna have to be obvious and it’s gonna have to not be bullshit.

That is fair, and I accept.

Except the couner position of not playing the source-resource game, since I can not possibly play that.

And that is no BS.

What is the source-resource game? Anywhays. Keep your secrets, lolz.

It is a game to measure resourcefulness for one thing.
The other is not an attempt to cover secrets, but an honest effort to cover the source of secrets, as that source covers it’s own method of releasing them.

It was the very method behind the Great doubter

himself " cogito ergo. or the answer to that question : I am, who I am.

There can be no proverbial doubt attached to that.

In genere suo

The closest I can get is my experience with Plato’s description of ā€˜Socrates’ Dream’.

Theatheus

Diotima? Moving along…

I am curious why the whole time I was writing this question out the whole is-ought thingy never even occurred to me. I may be back later with further thoughts. Likely.

Hoping, patiently, in fact encouraging and doubling down on it.

ā€œNow I’ll let you go. …
ā€œSo how could he be a god if he is not in possession of beautiful and good things?ā€ …
ā€œBecause he is the son of Resource and Poverty, Love’s situation is like this.ā€

I think it’s from Thaeteus and not the Republic version.

Thank You Ichthus.

I believe you were quoting from the symposium. If memory does not fail I first studied it during philosophy club at MJC many moons ago. Around this time of year, even. Appropriately. Life is so weird. Good weird.

Religion?

You may be right at that. ( More than likely)

Wasn’t sure whom you tried to communicate with, but it is more like philosophy of religion, rather than religious philosophy; though uncertain.

If that question was meant for me. If not , sorry to jump the gun.

If religion and worldview mean the same thing I think it encompasses the entire triad.