any theory of knowledge - presupposes a theory of
existence - at least for knowledge
could we begin an epistemological inquiry without
assuming the existence of knowledge - and characterizing
it - in some way - i.e. - as experience - as reason?
and the same applies with any ontological inquiry -
to begin the question of the nature of existence -
one must assume a theory of knowledge -
i.e. - we must assume that we know and know in a
certain way to say anything about what may or
may not exist
so what does this tell us?
we can approach epistemological and ontological issues -
but never without presupposition
it is just a question of perspective - you can begin
with either perspective - emphasis -
but you do not begin from a neutral ground
rather you begin - in the issues
and what you do then is explicate - expand the
perception
it is working in logical space - giving it form and
content
it may even be just recovering presuppositions -
again giving them explication - bringing them to
the fore - re-evaluating and stating their logical
status
it's possible too that in such an inquiry -
quite different understandings emerge
perhaps too
what this tells us is that knowledge and existence -
are - two aspects of a single - unified reality
that our understanding - is of two dimensions
knowing and existence
one thing I think this points to is that we cannot
conflate knowledge and existence
in the way that the solipsist argues - or the nihilist
that one can be reduced exclusively to the other
and the reason being just that any theory of knowing -
presupposes existence
any theory of existence - presupposes knowledge
either discussion - epistemological or ontological -
cannot begin in the absence of the other - this is to
also argue against reduction -
does it make sense to understand knowledge and existence
as separate poles - or end points of being?
I have used this image before - but it is like building
a house from the inside
the thing is the foundations (ontology) cannot be decided
independently of the aspect (epistemology) and the aspect
is not decided without reference to the foundations
but this is no ordinary construction - for it is never
finally determined - changes to the aspect - entail
changing the make up of the foundation
and the building goes on - from the inside - there are
constant additions and subtractions
what once was a cottage becomes a village - a village
a city - and then the city stripped back to a village
(of different design) perhaps back to a single room -
and possibly this is dismantled - to just foundations -
an open aspect - or indeed the foundations themselves
are removed
and then just as an aspect (solipsism) - but one that
has no definition no place -
perhaps this leads to rebuilding - a search for
foundations - and idea about aspect
perhaps there are no foundations - and so a structure
that is not permanently located with ever changing
aspect
and the point of all this - reason - who's building
the house and why?
the thing is - there is no answer outside of what
is going on - if there are any reasons(and in fact there
are many - and many changing reasons) they can only be
found inside - inside the structure as it is built
and destroyed and built again -
if you hope for a reason - from the outside - take stock
of yourself - there is no reason outside - reason is a
property of the inside - of logical space -
