PWIP 37

Epistemology

Existence and non-existence can both be said to exist in some sense. Non-existent things are said to be unable to show themselves in reality. These objects appear to have linguistic form but not physical form. Perhaps these are existentially broken objects; they have aspects of existence, but not those that can push them pass the existence threshold. Language is flexible enough to bring the idea of non-existent objects to the mind based on properties with no solid connections. If the ontology allows absurdities, the epistemology doesn’t appear to participate in it, save perhaps the ontology itself as presented as an epistemology.

How do we balance the thing, its opposite, and its negation? Nonexistence appears to be the opposite of existence itself, and not of the thing. It appears that it must exist that the thing must exist or not exist. Existence being a necessary property of a thing and its negation says nothing about the thing’s opposite. The opposite of a thing appears to be those in its family that generate significantly different results. The properties of the elements in a family present themselves in the relationship between mind and world as the mind attempts to correlate epistemology to ontology.

The unequal relationship between epistemology and ontology generates uncertainty. From the epistemology’s point-of-view, there is a conflict between existence and reality. When a thing is real and exist, it is considered true or actual. What are things which don’t exist but are real? Can they be said to exist in the future or past, thus being real but not existing currently? Perhaps these things exist in nonexistence, thus they are real there and not here? And what of those things which are not real but do exist? Can they be said to be fiction, since people will say they exist in some sense but not in the one which makes them real? Non-reality and nonexistence appear to lead to non-being. Non-being, from the epistemology’s point-of-view, is beyond all hints of awareness. These are being which appear forever unknown to those who can know anything.

The letter appears to exist in ontology in the same sense as number, in that anything that is one in number is also a word in letter. All phenomena appear to be in some sense nameable. Such makes an epistemology equal to the ontology theoretically possible, though impossible without omniscience. Since to explain the ontology is to equate words to what is, one can give the whole a name and be done with it. However, one can only confirm the parts by observations of them, and they appear to have some type of infinity. Without the complete truth, one doesn’t have the Truth. Though unobtainable it is still a goal to pursue.

The models and theories of the mind must mimic the world for there to be truth. The law must mimic ethics for there to be justice. This is typically dependent on Kantian Politics and whether virtue has any power. The mind judges its grasp of the world on its frequency of correct predictions. Likewise, the mind judges its grasp of ethics based on its frequency of producing good outcomes. Knowledge is used both in epistemology and ethics. Whereas the value of knowledge in epistemology is truth and falsehood, the value of knowledge in ethics is good or bad. Ethics may further its distance from epistemology by being more concerned with action than knowledge. Although, knowledge as a prerequisite for action is necessary for one to be an ethical agent. It would appear that Ontology is indifferent to truth, Epistemology is indifferent to virtue, and Ethics is indifferent to beauty.