1Z wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>>As my physics prof, Jurgen Ehlers used to say, "Before we can say whether or
>>not a thing exists we must know some of it's properities."  So to know
>>whether or not bigfoot exists we need to know enough properties of the
>>concept 'bigfoot', like "big", "hairy", "bipedal", "lives in woods of the
>>Pacific Northwest",...  Given enough properties we may be able to test his
>>existence against empirical evidence and reach a provisional conclusion.
>>So epistemology precedes ontology.
> OTOH, ontology precedes epistemology, because you
> can't figure out whether anything else exists unless you exist!

That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell 
pointed out was an unsupported inference.  The most that could be said is, 
"There's thinking."  If your ontology includes processes like "thinking" 
then I suppose it does precede your empistemology.  But you can't kick 
thinking and if you could it wouldn't kick back - unless the ESPers are 
right. ;-)

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to