epistemology, part 2

I think I actually am a hypocrit, with respect to the title of my blog. If you go back to my original post, you will see the significance of it in relation to my beliefs, in the sense that all things that are not as certain as that one thing Descartes showed (Cogito ergo sum) ought be put into a different category for consideration and debate.

Allow me to clarify:
ONTOLOGY that we can be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN about must be restricted to that one conclusion Descartes made.
ONTOLOGY actually covers more than that, however. I can imagine the world as being comprised of existence in itself, giving rise to my sensations, etc. This is an a posteriori conclusion that comments upon ontology, but it assumes that EMPIRICISM is a valid tool to make conclusions. The conclusion Descrates made does not require this empiricism, and so is the stronger conclusion.

I was tempted to say that because empirical conclusions are less certain, a healthy amount of skepticism could never hurt, and so I would be justified in thinking about empirical conclusions in the larger frame of EPISTEMOLOGY. Ontological conclusions outside of Descartes's cogito ergo sum are not certain, but at least I could investigate WHY I feel so certain of some empirical conclusions and not of others.

So you see, I divided the universe into absolute ontology and epistemology; epistemology encompassing all empirical thought. I am a hypocrit because sometimes I made an ontological query and used empirical logic without considering the larger epistemological framework I wished to apply in the beginning.

From now on, I will do my best to rectify my errs, and not be a hypocrit.