- #71
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
Great post. This is where the link is between epistemology and ontology. A priori the 'absolute' in ontological terms (what lies outside of Plato's cave) cannot be a relative phenomenon and cannot have a scientific existence (so we are chained to our benches). This seems to be generally accepted by philosphers.Originally posted by LW Sleeth
This an area of thought that is quite undecided. I am someone who can't agree with your overall statement.
What I could agree with is there is a whole class of things which are defined in terms of their relation to other things. That class gives us relative understanding, and in that class is included many things which are important to us, such as rational thought and language.
However, to say "there's no starting point" is only to say that you either haven't found one, can't imagine one, or see no need for one in order to understand the nature of reality. Personally, I cannot figure out how the relative aspects of existence ultimately make sense unless there is a starting point.
Actually, I think the two sides of the debate in this thread really boils down to the relativists and the "foundationalists." Dennett claims his model of consciousness gets around the problem of infinite regress that always plagues any relativist position attempting to circumvent an absolute principle (of course, the irony is that in the process any relativist position must eventually become the absolute!). The much simpler solution is to accept there is an absolute foundation at the base of all existence.
But in an epistemological sense the 'absolute' is the starting point for discrimination (categorisation, defining, conceiving etc). This starting point, if all knowledge derives from experience, can only be an 'absolute' experience.
Hence in Advaita, Taoism etc. epistemology and ontology are the same thing in the end. All IMHO of course, but we seem to agree on this.