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 āontologyā the better term to use for the reasons we believe something is grounded in reality? Is that arguing to first principles? Should the word āepistemologyā 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____logyā is aesthetics (perhaps given one can create/choose/believe/hypothesize/etc toward the eternalāset this aside if it blocks you from seeing the third thing)?
So you would say Kierkegaardās 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 donāt think it suspends anythingā¦ 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 āworks of loveā after all.
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 itās 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.
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.
āNow Iāll let you go. ā¦
āSo how could he be a god if he is not in possession of beautiful and good things?ā ā¦
āBecause he is the son of Resource and Poverty, Loveās situation is like this.ā
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.