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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
