Ontology as the limit of epistemology
August 28th 2007 21:10
What is the 'thing-in-itself"? What are all those things around you right now? How can you get to the point where you see it not only throught your phenomenal eyes, bound to have a small picture of the thing?
Fisrt of all, all the data we can get from an object comes from our representation. Every time we look at something we can find something new about it, that can be added to what we think is this object. Obviously after a couple of times looking at someone you can tell that you are not getting much new information about it, and your knowledge about him tend to be limited to a certain point.
To know everything about something, to get to know what is the 'thing-in-itself", we would have to be able to look at it from all eyes, from every possible way. Thus ontology, the study of 'things-in-itselves" can only be achieved as the limit where epistemology gave all the information you can get.
But this supposes a different definition for what is the thing-in-itself, as i said before: the 'thing-in-itself' can never be achieved if not by the "gathered knowledge" of every single picture we can make from an object. Ontology is only possible if it is the limit of epistemology.
Otherwise it is all bullshit. Or you agree the idealist position that let down the "things-in-itselves" as an unsoluttioned matter.
I don't agree with Heidegger when he says that the only being we can study is ourselves, "beings that care", "placed in time". Why? Because still all we can get from ourselves comes from the representation that we have from reality.
The other way would be against me when i define the "thing-in-itself" as being the sum of all representations. If you thing it can be different than this, thus we're bound to darkness, and the mouse right next to you could be acctually something more like a car (it still can in the way i see it, but it would be way harder...)
hehe. i hope you understood something. I swear to you it's not a "hegelian" post, where i throw ideas in the paper and the reader have to find the sense on them...
cheers.
Fisrt of all, all the data we can get from an object comes from our representation. Every time we look at something we can find something new about it, that can be added to what we think is this object. Obviously after a couple of times looking at someone you can tell that you are not getting much new information about it, and your knowledge about him tend to be limited to a certain point.
To know everything about something, to get to know what is the 'thing-in-itself", we would have to be able to look at it from all eyes, from every possible way. Thus ontology, the study of 'things-in-itselves" can only be achieved as the limit where epistemology gave all the information you can get.
But this supposes a different definition for what is the thing-in-itself, as i said before: the 'thing-in-itself' can never be achieved if not by the "gathered knowledge" of every single picture we can make from an object. Ontology is only possible if it is the limit of epistemology.
Otherwise it is all bullshit. Or you agree the idealist position that let down the "things-in-itselves" as an unsoluttioned matter.
I don't agree with Heidegger when he says that the only being we can study is ourselves, "beings that care", "placed in time". Why? Because still all we can get from ourselves comes from the representation that we have from reality.
The other way would be against me when i define the "thing-in-itself" as being the sum of all representations. If you thing it can be different than this, thus we're bound to darkness, and the mouse right next to you could be acctually something more like a car (it still can in the way i see it, but it would be way harder...)
hehe. i hope you understood something. I swear to you it's not a "hegelian" post, where i throw ideas in the paper and the reader have to find the sense on them...
cheers.
| 36 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
