On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 caljlo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I too enjoyed the brawling about truth. I was utterly unclear about
> ontology,
> epistemology and teleology before and am still in the same state. Is any
> one out there kind enough to explain each of them for me? Jennifer O'Brien
By "explain" do you mean just in terms of definitions? If so, perhaps this
helps:
Ontology, understood as a branch of metaphysics, is the science of
being in general, embracing such issues as the nature of existence
and the categorial structure of reality.
Epistemology is the study of our right to the beliefs we have.
More generally, we start from what we might call our cognitive
stances, and ask whether we do well to have those stances.
Cognitive stances include both our beliefs and (what we take
to be) our knowings; and in another dimension they include
our attitudes towards the various stages and methods we use
to get new beliefs and filter out old ones. . . .
Epistemology, on this showing, is explicitly *normative*; it
is concerned with whether we have acted well or badly
(responsibly or irresponsibly) in forming the beliefs we
have.
Teleological explanations attempt to account for things
and features by appeal to their contribution to optimal
states, or the normal functioning, of the attainment
of goals, of wholes or systems they belong to.
(above quotations from _Oxford Companion to
Philosophy_)
--John
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, jon roffe wrote:
>
> > Greetings
> > this is my first message to the list, so I hope it got where it was
> > meant to go. I'm only getting the digest at the moment too, so this
> > might be old ideas by now.
> >
> > >On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, John Ransom wrote:
> >
> > >I wonder if anyone else is struck by Foucault's insistence on the
> > >*reality* of the soul.
> >
> > My interpretation of this passage has always been that the 'reality' of
> > the soul that Foucault seems so insistent on is certainly quite distinct
> > from the traditional ontological sense. It seems to me Foucault is
> > saying the soul's reality is constituted due to various technologies of
> > power. It is not a given that is interpreted differently as different
> > modes of discourse develop. The 'soul' of theologians etc. was a
> > product of discursive formations at the time when theological discourse
> > was the dominant mode of understanding. Ditto for the sociologists.
> >
> > This is all to say, I guess, that the 'reality' of the soul is a
> > socio-political (in the broad sense) rather than an ontological notion
> > for Foucault, as I read it.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > P.S. I really enjoyed the 'brawling' over 'vulgar theories of truth'!
> > If I was ever clear on epistemology, ontology and the social
> > construction of reality, I'm not any more . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> I too enjoyed the brawling about truth. I was utterly unclear about
> ontology,
> epistemology and teleology before and am still in the same state. Is any
> one out there kind enough to explain each of them for me? Jennifer O'Brien
By "explain" do you mean just in terms of definitions? If so, perhaps this
helps:
Ontology, understood as a branch of metaphysics, is the science of
being in general, embracing such issues as the nature of existence
and the categorial structure of reality.
Epistemology is the study of our right to the beliefs we have.
More generally, we start from what we might call our cognitive
stances, and ask whether we do well to have those stances.
Cognitive stances include both our beliefs and (what we take
to be) our knowings; and in another dimension they include
our attitudes towards the various stages and methods we use
to get new beliefs and filter out old ones. . . .
Epistemology, on this showing, is explicitly *normative*; it
is concerned with whether we have acted well or badly
(responsibly or irresponsibly) in forming the beliefs we
have.
Teleological explanations attempt to account for things
and features by appeal to their contribution to optimal
states, or the normal functioning, of the attainment
of goals, of wholes or systems they belong to.
(above quotations from _Oxford Companion to
Philosophy_)
--John
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, jon roffe wrote:
>
> > Greetings
> > this is my first message to the list, so I hope it got where it was
> > meant to go. I'm only getting the digest at the moment too, so this
> > might be old ideas by now.
> >
> > >On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, John Ransom wrote:
> >
> > >I wonder if anyone else is struck by Foucault's insistence on the
> > >*reality* of the soul.
> >
> > My interpretation of this passage has always been that the 'reality' of
> > the soul that Foucault seems so insistent on is certainly quite distinct
> > from the traditional ontological sense. It seems to me Foucault is
> > saying the soul's reality is constituted due to various technologies of
> > power. It is not a given that is interpreted differently as different
> > modes of discourse develop. The 'soul' of theologians etc. was a
> > product of discursive formations at the time when theological discourse
> > was the dominant mode of understanding. Ditto for the sociologists.
> >
> > This is all to say, I guess, that the 'reality' of the soul is a
> > socio-political (in the broad sense) rather than an ontological notion
> > for Foucault, as I read it.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > P.S. I really enjoyed the 'brawling' over 'vulgar theories of truth'!
> > If I was ever clear on epistemology, ontology and the social
> > construction of reality, I'm not any more . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
>