Question for Lingo:

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Prepare for obligatory Cali Coug post mocking anyone who believes anything written on Wikipedia.

Tex Corollary # 3

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

That was right out of Wikipedia because I had no idea what those two words meant. After reading through that I was still in the dark but I thought someone else could sort it out.

I wanted to give you credit for a reasonable explanation for those who skipped some philosophy classes. In this instance, Wikipedia did a journeyman's job.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I wanted to give you credit for a reasonable explanation for those who skipped some philosophy classes. In this instance, Wikipedia did a journeyman's job.

I took one philosophy class years ago. I remember writing a paper about Descartes, but about all I remember about the paper or the class is that the first "s" in Descartes is silent.

Come to think of it, the second one might be, too.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I took one philosophy class years ago. I remember writing a paper about Descartes, but about all I remember about the paper or the class is that the first "s" in Descartes is silent.

Come to think of it, the second one might be, too.

Given the name is French, both "s's" are silent.

Descartes started dualism in his system, which Hume, Kant and many others began to dissemble. He was also a competent and famous mathematician. Some claim he borrowed his analysis from Islamic philosophers, Avicenna and Averro, who in turn had borrowed from Aristotle.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The concepts ontology, epistemology, and axiology are in common circulation in humanities circles. They might seem like dinner party words, but their precision makes them very useful. If more people understood and made a habit of applying them, many a fruitless argument would be avoided.

Ontological assumptions concern the nature of humankind (and by extension, of something like "God"). An assumption, for example, that human beings are base (and not good), is an ontological assumption. The doctrine of original sin is rife with ontological assumption.

Epistemological assumptions concern how we know what we know. The pre-Socratic split between empiricism and rationalism is an epistemological one. The differences between quantitative and qualitative methods, differences that play a big part in the distinction between say, science degrees and art degrees, are epistemological. Is knowledge grounded empirically, intuitively, experimentally, or some other way (like, say, spiritually)? This is an epistemological question.

Axiological assumptions deal with the values that are implied by, or are implicit in, a worldview, theory, or mode of thinking. Does this theory assume the goodness or evil of progress or technology? Does this line of thinking assume that Victorian gender roles are natural? Those are axiological questions.

Asking these questions is a great way to get a handle on someone's sense of her/his own perspective. I hope this little explanation has been helpful. My apologies to those of you who had this drilled into you in philosophy 101.

[il Padrino Ute]

Yeah, but how many of you guys can hit a curveball?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The concepts ontology, epistemology, and axiology are in common circulation in humanities circles. They might seem like dinner party words, but their precision makes them very useful. If more people understood and made a habit of applying them, many a fruitless argument would be avoided.

Ontological assumptions concern the nature of humankind (and by extension, of something like "God"). An assumption, for example, that human beings are base (and not good), is an ontological assumption. The doctrine of original sin is rife with ontological assumption.

Epistemological assumptions concern how we know what we know. The pre-Socratic split between empiricism and rationalism is an epistemological one. The differences between quantitative and qualitative methods, differences that play a big part in the distinction between say, science degrees and art degrees, are epistemological. Is knowledge grounded empirically, intuitively, experimentally, or some other way (like, say, spiritually)? This is an epistemological question.

Axiological assumptions deal with the values that are implied by, or are implicit in, a worldview, theory, or mode of thinking. Does this theory assume the goodness or evil of progress or technology? Does this line of thinking assume that Victorian gender roles are natural? Those are axiological questions.

Asking these questions is a great way to get a handle on someone's sense of her/his own perspective. I hope this little explanation has been helpful. My apologies to those of you who had this drilled into you in philosophy 101.

I apologize for any lack of clarity in my questions, and am grateful for the professor's contributions to our class's inquiry. Unfortunately, Lingo is nowhere to be found.

I would be interested in Tex's or Indy's responses as well. Or anybody else's.

Ontological concerns should be distinguished from ontical concerns, whereas the former involves the nature, in a self-awareness, the latter involves the mere existence without the ability of self-awareness. A human has ontological qualities, whereas a rock has only ontical qualities. At least Heidegger tried to make that distinction, even though I'm not certain all philosophical systems accept that distinction. That's actually not a very good explanation, but while working it's the best I could come up with.


The reason I pose these questions is if we determine how one views what we are substantively, how we acquire knowledge, including the definition of what we know, what is knowable, and how this all relates to our religiosity, we can understand that person's belief system more thoroughly.

People often view these questions couched in philosophical terms as strange, but the precision of the terms when used appropriately is very helpful and enlightening.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Yeah, but how many of you guys can hit a curveball?

I have a lot better chance at hitting a Zito curve ball then I do of making an intelligent contribution to this thread.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

I have a lot better chance at hitting a Zito curve ball then I do of making an intelligent contribution to this thread.

.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RC Vikings

I have a lot better chance at hitting a Zito curve ball then I do of making an intelligent contribution to this thread.

Try. You might surprise us and yourself. It's not that difficult.

Answer the question posed this way.

What is the nature of matter, of human kind and vegetation in relation to God, both at the particle level and at the symbolic level?

What is knowledge, how do we acquire it, and what portion of the whole are we capable of acquiring?

How do you exercise faith in the face of doubt and ambiguity? [hint this one's easy to answer but difficult to do].

Again, as Seattle is wont to say, I'm just an amateur in the face of the experts, SIEQ, Pelagius, Solon, CHC and Chino, so the rest of us are just hacks trying to understand ourselves and our world better.