Knowing and knowledge

The process of knowing is specific to time and place, that is, knowing is a temporal and spatial process of a thing. But knowledge as objects of the mind are atemporal and aspatial. Often, we confuse knowledge for knowing, but rarely do we make the reverse mistake.

Reply (more questions on): orientation upon objects and ontology of objects

Nice background to your thinking. Speaking of backgrounds, I would like to add your bio. Anyways, and so it is, my work is more about “orientation upon objects“, than it is about an ontology of objects; I actually play around with the notion that I am concerned more with teleology.  Orientation upon objects and significance of significance I … Continue reading Reply (more questions on): orientation upon objects and ontology of objects

Atemporality and aspatiality

Objects of the mind are characterised by atemporality and aspatiality (my term) while objects of reality (things) are characterised by temporality and spatiality. Representations of things (mind-objects) are inconsistent with reality (thing-objects) because of this difference in characterisation. Phenomena and noumena are distinct. Problems arise when we engage with reality with non-existent (without ontology) atemporal … Continue reading Atemporality and aspatiality

From concepts to Kierkegaard: a reply

A reply to preliminary-comments-on-the-existence-of-concepts First, a delineation. The idea that philosophy must be about finding or asserting what is more true of a situation is but one manner of philosophy. So the issue, really, for the existence of concepts, in answering the question of their existence, one should first address: what is being attempted in answering … Continue reading From concepts to Kierkegaard: a reply