Excerpts
Initially, I am providing you with a couple of excerpts from chapter two of my nearly finished unpublished book titled The Independent Philosopher. In my book, an experienced independent philosopher named Charles instructs a beginner, Steve, who has more than a passing interest in modern philosophical reality. The instruction takes place in a series of conversations at Charles' home. (After the excerpts, there is a defintion section.) I hope you enjoy!
Excerpt #1
“But enough about that for now, let’s talk philosophy. I enjoyed your last visit, and I prepared for today’s discussion on epistemology and ontology. Preparing for our talks helps me focus my ideas and consolidate my own understanding of philosophy and its applications,” Charles said.
“I got a copy of The Oxford Companion to Philosophy,” Steve said, “and I read the entries on epistemology and ontology. I did not understand ontology at all from the book’s description, and I only vaguely understood epistemology.”
“That book serves as a great quick reference but not as a substitute for in-depth study of various philosophical works on a given subject,” replied Charles. “However, it can guide you in determining your interests in philosophy, and it suggests specific philosophers and specific works for further study in your areas of interest.”
“In the entry on epistemology I read about Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am,’ which I remember from college when I read it directly from English translations of Descartes’ works. I have excerpts from his books in my college anthologies at home, but I didn’t have time to study them thoroughly before today. I don’t remember the details except that I think he doubted everything he could possibly doubt until he was left with the indubitable fact that, through his action of doubting, he could not deny his existence as a doubter,” Steve said.
“That is as good a place as any to start. Descartes could not doubt to himself his existence as a thinker, but he had difficulties establishing what else he might be. Did he only dream that he sat by the fire thinking, while he actually slept in bed? Or did an evil demon deceive him into believing that his perceptions of the world reflected reality when they were actually in error?” Charles asked rhetorically.
“I don’t understand Descartes’ epistemology or its relationship to ontology, whatever that is,” said Steve.
“Ontology is unmitigated, absolute reality, independent of human understanding. Epistemology evaluates methods for determining the authenticity of human knowledge and understanding of reality. Descartes’ systematic doubting was an epistemological effort to establish human understanding of something ontological. He looked for certainty, and being a thinking entity was the only certainty he could establish beyond doubt. Ultimately Descartes’ entire epistemological efforts proved nothing ontological except for his existence as a thinking being of some kind,” Charles said.
“Surely he knew he was human,” Steve said.
“He suspected it, but Descartes doubted everything until the only clear and distinct ontological truth he established was being a thinking entity of some kind. From that he built elaborate proofs of God’s existence and the separation between his apparent human mind and body, but neither of these latter two philosophical proofs, as Descartes wrote them, hold any validity today. He proved to himself he was a thinking entity as long as he could think, and anyone else who thinks cannot doubt his or her existence as a thinking entity. This fact alone substantiates self-evident ontology."
Excerpt #2
“A more influential philosopher [than Berkeley], David Hume, was skeptical about human knowledge gained by sensory experience and by reason. In 1748 he published his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in which he argues that sensory impressions are the only source of information about the world, but sensory impressions cannot explain the relationship between cause and effect. Nor can the mind’s ability to reason explain cause and effect. Hume wrote that cause and effect are inexplicable and the best humans can do is observe that two or more events occur simultaneously, or that one event immediately follows another event.
“When our experience indicates that one event is connected with another event, such as a candle flame with heat, we develop the habit or custom of associating the two together, but we do not understand the causal relationship. Sensory impressions cannot understand causal connections, and neither can human reason. Habits and customs, developed by repeated sensory impressions and memory, assist people in daily life, but habit and custom do not suffice as philosophically sound knowledge of causal connections. Hume’s work is an extreme logical conclusion based on possible philosophical limitations to empirical and rational knowledge,” said Charles.
“But we know why candle flames cause heat.”
“Why?”
“Because the wick burns slowly as melted wax seeps into it.”
“Why does the wick burn, why does wax make it burn more slowly, and why does this burning generate heat? To say that burning causes heat is a circular argument—it burns because it’s hot, and it’s hot because it burns.”
“Well, I don’t know why, but somebody does. Surely chemistry and physics can explain the causes and effects involved in a burning candle,” Steve said.
“Chemistry and physics are merely descriptive sciences built on experimental observation and idealized models. They describe what appears to happen using chemical notation and mathematics as modeling tools for the description of observed events. Chemical and physical models can tell us what conditions are necessary for specific events to occur, and the descriptions are frequently so comprehensive and usable for predictions that we assume they tell us how and why something occurs.
“Consider gravity for example. Newton’s law of gravity states that gravity is a force equal to a constant multiplied times mass 1 and mass 2, all divided by the distance squared between the masses. This equation describes gravity's apparent behavior and says nothing about how or why. Einstein later refined Newton’s conception of the force of gravity. Einstein said that the apparent force of gravity results from a curving of space-time by matter. Einstein’s equations for gravity contain more precision than Newton’s equation, but again Einstein could not say how and why matter warps space-time.
“Newton’s force model works for some predictions in certain circumstances, but Einstein’s warped-space-time model provides more precise solutions in special circumstances, plus Einstein’s model gives answers equivalent to Newton’s model when Newton’s equations are usable. Is gravity a force or is it a warping of space-time, or do both explanations apply? Either way, why and how does matter generate gravity? No one knows why or how.
“Identifying that matter and gravity occur together suffices for everyday human use, like Hume's habit and custom, but it lacks the philosophical completeness of causal meaning. The mathematical models by Newton and Einstein allow us to predict how objects will behave under gravity’s influence, but we do not need to know the underlying cause or reason in order to manipulate objects using gravity’s effects. Philosophers, however, seek to understand the underlying causes and reasons, the whys and hows.
“Light a candle sometime, watch it burn, and try to conceptualize in your mind what happens to the various molecules and atoms involved in combustion, paying special attention to electron activity. I enjoy watching a candle flame when the power goes out at night. Obtain the notation and math models from chemistry and physics that apply to candle flames and try to imagine the transformation of vaporizing wax and wick molecules as it really happens, generating heat and light energy that sustains the process in a controlled manner. Conceptualize in your mind the reality of the flame, and remember that you are limited to observing those aspects of a burning candle that you can see, hear, smell, and feel on a human scale. You must imagine activity at molecular and atomic scales from chemistry and physics models, both of which only provide representative models of the reality they describe.
“I know I appear to be downplaying modern science in favor of 300-year-old empiricist philosophers whose works no longer totally apply in modern philosophy, but you must challenge yourself to understand and recognize the limitations of human knowledge of reality. Epistemological justification for human knowledge differs from ontology, and knowing this will lead you to a better personal understanding of reality. Epistemology is the study of how human knowledge of reality is gained and justified, and ontology is actual reality. Strive to comprehend ontology, but understand that at best your knowledge only approximates ontology. As a philosopher, or a thinker about reality, make the unavoidable epistemological gap between your personal knowledge and ontology as small as possible."
DEFINITIONS FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.
Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.It addresses the questions: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? What do people know? How do we know what we know? Why do we know what we know?