Q&A: Is an Epistemic Definition Also Correct in the Ontic World?
Is an Epistemic Definition Also Correct in the Ontic World?
Question
Does three times three equal nine? Is that also true regarding inanimate objects: a table, a chair, a stone? Or is that undefined, or should one not mix cognition with reality?
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. Are you asking whether, if I arrange three rows of three chairs, there will be nine chairs altogether?
Discussion on Answer
Heaven forbid. I don’t think you’re a complete fool, and I didn’t say that either. I was just wondering what exactly your question was.
1. Indeed correct.
2. Completely. I’ve spoken about this more than once (search here on the site for Wanderwelt).
3. I understand that 3 was an attempt to explain the original question, but I still don’t understand. Obviously we have incorrect assumptions (like Aristotle’s assumption that objects fall to the ground at a speed proportional to their mass/weight) and various delusions. Again, what exactly is the question?
I didn’t find Wanderwelt on the site. Apparently I need to conceptualize more clearly what each of the fields deals with (ontology and epistemology).
The search brings up Column 50 and Column 318. Take a look there.
Haha, you made me out to be a complete fool. (:
1) Three times three equals nine is a cognitive truth even if it had no expression in the physical world.
2) I suddenly realize what unsettled me a bit: the gap between cognition, where there are absolute and certain truths, and physical reality, which is transient and almost always open to interpretation.
3) What is true in the mind does not always get reflected in reality. Is that correct?