Replies

Wouldn't it be great if science had a "truth in labeling" ethic such that it would distinguish its own pronouncements as being either episteme or doxa?

LOL, well wouldn't that be great!!!??? But I doubt that's gonna happen anytime soon. For one thing, people have lost all sense that episteme and doxa are opposites. Also they have lost sight of the classical perception that truth (Logos) is not approximate or relative, i.e., some kind of sliding scale of value that allows us to say that something is "more true" or "less true"; but is actually realized in the forms and natures of existent entities, and inheres in them...indeed, the Cosmos itself is the reification of Truth; and man, the microcosmos, fully participates in it at all levels of his being. [BTW, this insight answers Leibnitz's second question.]

And there are many levels -- inorganic, vegetative, animal, psychic (in the sense of both emotional life and intellectual life).

I'm sure an idea like that strikes the modern ear as being very strange. Except possibly the Christian ear, or that of the student of metaphysics....

Thanks so much, Alamo-Girl for your kind words of support -- and for the two outstanding replies you wrote to malakhi!

I'm sure an idea like that strikes the modern ear as being very strange. Except possibly the Christian ear, or that of the student of metaphysics....

"My ideas might sound strange, unless you're moral or educated."

Nice.

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

...people have lost all sense that episteme and doxa are opposites. Also they have lost sight of the classical perception that truth (Logos) is not approximate or relative, i.e., some kind of sliding scale of value that allows us to say that something is "more true" or "less true"; but is actually realized in the forms and natures of existent entities, and inheres in them...indeed, the Cosmos itself is the reification of Truth; and man, the microcosmos, fully participates in it at all levels of his being.

So very true. The issue of Truth throws people for a loop - they try to ignore it or make cheap substitutes. It cuts too deeply for anyone who doesn't want more than "microscope to telescope" knowledge.