Re: Epistemology and Ontology

["Roberto Poli" <***>]

Judith,
ontology and epistemology are someway difficult to define for a number
of reasons. Basically,
(1) they have a rather long story behind (with many different
interpretations), and
(2) the mainstream interpretation in particular of ontology comes in an
unusually restricted if
not decidedly flawed fashion ("mainstream" : as far as the
English-speaking world is considered).
Furthermore and more seriously, a definition is not enough. One can't
claim to have a good
idea of physics or biology by knowing only their definitions (providing
that good enough definitions
are available). The same for philosophy (and in particular for ours
epist. and ontol.).

Let me shortly sketch my way of understanding your father's
interpretation of ontology and epistemology.
(1) Ontology as the theory of coming into being. Agreed on. This is a
someway minimal understanding of
ontology, well acceptable as a solid starting point
(2) epistemology as the theory of knowledge, i.e. the theory concerning
"origin, methods, nature, and limits of
knowledge". No problem.
The question is that something is missing: the "item" that comes into
existence, lasts for some time and passes away
has its own individuality and structure. These may be assigned either to
epistemology (as most of contemporary philosophers tend to do) or to
ontology (as I tend to do). In other words, I claim that the "object of
knowledge" (what the knowledge is about) is part and parcel of the
world, it is something that is there, and in many cases it is totally
indifferent to our cognitive efforts. Science tries to capture some of
its aspects. In any case, the object over there is not a product of our
mind. Most of my colleagues (and the great majority of contemporary
scientists) focus their attention more on our efforts than on the
objects we are trying to capture with our theories. Leaving aside
colleagues, let me conclude by adding that there is no reason for
trusting scientists as far as philosophical matters are concerned. The
great majority is still obdurately reductionistic and share very
old-fashioned positivistic attitudes. I see as a sign of your father's
insight the fact that he reserved a role (and not the less relevant
one!) to ontology, leaving the rest  in a someway underdetermined
status.

sincerely, r

*****************************
Dr Roberto Poli, PhD
Editor-in-chief of Axiomathes
http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/1122-1151
Papers and other information from
http://www.mitteleuropafoundation.it
Preferred e-mail: ***