Is it an accurate statement to say that you believe ontology precedes epistemology? I (typically) assume that epistemology precedes ontology, instead of assuming that ontology precedes epistemology, though I admit that the latter is more historically common and intuitive to most.
The reason I believe epistemology precedes ontology is that if we exist as beings (I'll address this "ontological smuggling" of what we _are_ in a moment) then we must first understand the nature of that knowledge before addressing what that knowledge tells us about what _is_ outside of that experience. Without this first step, any statement about ontological reality is a premature leap.
Of course, to assume knowledge exists implies being itself exists, and _knowledge_ exists, which is close enough to coherence and independence in your model from my PoV. However, at this point, you are merely in "information" space, and asking deeper questions about what that information _is_ is actually nonsensical. Of course, there might be something of what that information _is_, but this is now what theology is all about in my opinion.
It's not that I believe that "secularism" is neutral, but that have no way (that I know of) to address _what_ information actually is at bottom. This is the "ontological" question without an answer. We just know how it behaves in the world: it constistutes beings and sustainability. I just think we should be properly critical (in the critical rationalist sense) of the kinds of questions of which we are capable of answering, and with what amount of certainty.
So to me, your essay reads as a bit too dogmatic for my liking. All things are criticizable, and thank goodness. It's how information is actually sustained: through a process of conjecture and refutation (or ideation/mutation and criticism/selection, if you like).
I just want to say that I appreciate your comments because you highlight important details.
I’m not entirely convinced it makes sense to say ontology strictly precedes epistemology or vice versa. It seems more accurate to say they are inseparable in human experience.
We cannot know without already participating in a coherent reality, yet we also come to understand reality through inquiry, criticism, and discovery. In that sense, we participate before we fully understand.
My concern is that epistemology quietly depends upon prior conditions whether acknowledged or not: coherence, intelligibility, continuity, causality, stable identity, and truth all have to remain sufficiently reliable for criticism, conjecture, or refutation to mean anything at all. Even critical rationalism presupposes a reality stable enough for criticism itself to remain meaningful.
The major issue with modern discourse is that it assumes the foundation of reality must become an object “inside” reality before it can be taken seriously. If something cannot be isolated, pointed to, measured, or fully contained empirically, it is treated as speculative or meaningless.
But that assumption itself seems questionable bc we do not observe coherence itself as an object, yet we rely on it constantly. We do not physically hold logic or causality, yet inquiry presupposes them. The very conditions that make observation possible are not necessarily the kinds of things that become objects “within” observation.
So I’m not arguing for dogmatic certainty or against criticism, quite the opposite. I think these questions should be pushed hard and challenged to their limits bc that is what brings more clarity. Honest inquiry matters.
My problem is when foundational questions become obscured, redirected, or reduced to identity positions in ways that keep people arguing downstream instead of examining the assumptions making the argument possible in the first place. That’s dishonest.
The deeper issue is that finite participation depends on some asymmetry between ourselves and the foundation of reality. We may be able to orient toward it, discover through it, and continually align ourselves within a reality coherent enough to sustain inquiry, without ever fully exhausting or containing the ground that makes inquiry possible.
And that is where modern culture has confused the search itself. The goal is not to “find” the foundation as though it were an object hidden somewhere inside reality, waiting to be possessed. That expectation is the category error.
The point, instead, is participation. To exist, discover, strive, build, wonder, question, enjoy, and continue uncovering within a reality that remains intelligible enough to sustain meaning, yet larger than our ability to fully contain.
The openness of that relationship is not a failure of understanding. It is a part of what makes understanding worth pursuing in the first place.
Is it an accurate statement to say that you believe ontology precedes epistemology? I (typically) assume that epistemology precedes ontology, instead of assuming that ontology precedes epistemology, though I admit that the latter is more historically common and intuitive to most.
The reason I believe epistemology precedes ontology is that if we exist as beings (I'll address this "ontological smuggling" of what we _are_ in a moment) then we must first understand the nature of that knowledge before addressing what that knowledge tells us about what _is_ outside of that experience. Without this first step, any statement about ontological reality is a premature leap.
Of course, to assume knowledge exists implies being itself exists, and _knowledge_ exists, which is close enough to coherence and independence in your model from my PoV. However, at this point, you are merely in "information" space, and asking deeper questions about what that information _is_ is actually nonsensical. Of course, there might be something of what that information _is_, but this is now what theology is all about in my opinion.
It's not that I believe that "secularism" is neutral, but that have no way (that I know of) to address _what_ information actually is at bottom. This is the "ontological" question without an answer. We just know how it behaves in the world: it constistutes beings and sustainability. I just think we should be properly critical (in the critical rationalist sense) of the kinds of questions of which we are capable of answering, and with what amount of certainty.
So to me, your essay reads as a bit too dogmatic for my liking. All things are criticizable, and thank goodness. It's how information is actually sustained: through a process of conjecture and refutation (or ideation/mutation and criticism/selection, if you like).
I just want to say that I appreciate your comments because you highlight important details.
I’m not entirely convinced it makes sense to say ontology strictly precedes epistemology or vice versa. It seems more accurate to say they are inseparable in human experience.
We cannot know without already participating in a coherent reality, yet we also come to understand reality through inquiry, criticism, and discovery. In that sense, we participate before we fully understand.
My concern is that epistemology quietly depends upon prior conditions whether acknowledged or not: coherence, intelligibility, continuity, causality, stable identity, and truth all have to remain sufficiently reliable for criticism, conjecture, or refutation to mean anything at all. Even critical rationalism presupposes a reality stable enough for criticism itself to remain meaningful.
The major issue with modern discourse is that it assumes the foundation of reality must become an object “inside” reality before it can be taken seriously. If something cannot be isolated, pointed to, measured, or fully contained empirically, it is treated as speculative or meaningless.
But that assumption itself seems questionable bc we do not observe coherence itself as an object, yet we rely on it constantly. We do not physically hold logic or causality, yet inquiry presupposes them. The very conditions that make observation possible are not necessarily the kinds of things that become objects “within” observation.
So I’m not arguing for dogmatic certainty or against criticism, quite the opposite. I think these questions should be pushed hard and challenged to their limits bc that is what brings more clarity. Honest inquiry matters.
My problem is when foundational questions become obscured, redirected, or reduced to identity positions in ways that keep people arguing downstream instead of examining the assumptions making the argument possible in the first place. That’s dishonest.
The deeper issue is that finite participation depends on some asymmetry between ourselves and the foundation of reality. We may be able to orient toward it, discover through it, and continually align ourselves within a reality coherent enough to sustain inquiry, without ever fully exhausting or containing the ground that makes inquiry possible.
And that is where modern culture has confused the search itself. The goal is not to “find” the foundation as though it were an object hidden somewhere inside reality, waiting to be possessed. That expectation is the category error.
The point, instead, is participation. To exist, discover, strive, build, wonder, question, enjoy, and continue uncovering within a reality that remains intelligible enough to sustain meaning, yet larger than our ability to fully contain.
The openness of that relationship is not a failure of understanding. It is a part of what makes understanding worth pursuing in the first place.
I, likewise, appreciate your willingness to engage! Always a pleasure