Talk:Gnosiology

message: Metagignosko wrote
:::Your extremely defensive reply is unwarranted. As is what appears to be an attempt to blast criticism below.
--------
LoveMonkey's reply
As do all of your comments on this talkpage. Since when is wikipedia unfit or not the place for theological terms-as your very first post alleges.
::"This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is an encyclopedia not a Greek Orthodox philosophical dictionary. If it were the latter, the focus and content would be just fine. As it is, there are serious issues with POV and common source referencing. Metagignosko (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you expect people to respond to comments like that above? And if they respond in kind, do you not consider your comments then, disingenuous- in being provocative and then expressing outage that people get provoked..
LoveMonkey (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: LoveMonkey's reply

message: Wikipedia has as an encyclopedia criticism as an integral part of its collaborative process. It is good to be critical, but critical to drive and fuel better article development not to make unproductive and make unsigned counter productive comments like the one posted below on this talkpage. Why is an article written by an accredited Professor of one of the Oldest Universities in history of the Mediterranean world (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) now no longer "good enough" to source a stub article about a philosophical and theological term. Greece would have the Oldest University in the world if crusaders and Turks hadn't destroyed it (see University of Constantinople). So Why the impossible criteria? What kind of reduction to the absurd unsatisfiable criteria are people trying to establish here?LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't try to stifle legitimate criticism with such an obvious red herring. The anonymous comment states that the article in the link is irrelevant due to its subject matter. The academic standing of the author is not mentioned nor implied as an issue. Grind your axe elsewhere. Metagignosko (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't try and post that people can not be critical of anonymious unwarranted and counterproductive statements. Please don't defend bad behaviour. Pretty please.
LoveMonkey (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter Productive Ridicule

message: Section Eastern Orthodox theology para 3:
:The nous in Hellenistic philosophy is the term for the demiurge, meaning...
What?! And:
:The followers of gnosticism vilified...
What?! Is there a purpose of this topic-hopping, or have random editor added random reflections around "gnosis"? 
Where is the definition of "gnosiology"? The Section Eastern Orthodox theology only provides a pseudo-definition that elegantly pours out words in a manner to make "gnosiology" just any other applied science. Where is the real definition? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to understand Rev Metallinos, I perceived he used some kind of inferior reasoning, in this blog comment I got the idea that given a platonic realist view (with common concepts as being real), gnosiology is some kind of methodology, that per the bible revelations and other taken as axioms, one meditates those dogma on order to "implement" them in oneself, and live according to their consequences. Or something ... behind the brag-abouts of "science", "true", "clean", "non-protestant", "non-western" and such egoinflating wordings. An interesting concept, perhaps. I'm reasoning along similar lines, but I'm a protestant. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you requesting that the comments be sourced? As are you accusing Professor George Metallinos of hubris? The reason the term is used is because the West confuses gnosiology with gnosticism. To do that is throw the baby out with the bath water. I supposed you can't really be troubled to actually read any real life Greek philosophers and see what they say? I mean from your comments are people to believe that Christos Yannaras is an idiot?  Or Dumitru Stăniloae for that matter.  Do you know anything about any of this? Or are you just here throwing about accusations because you have no idea about any of this subject and or any of the people involved in it? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused mess

message: See Talk:Gnosology#Gnosology and gnosticism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy#Gnosology and gnosiology. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Gnosology]] into [[Gnosiology]] 

message: I propose to do without this article, merging it or redirecting to Epistemology. I considered requesting the article for deletion, but redirect seems more appropriate. Whether there is any real substance to be merged is unclear; a deletion-via-redirect seems appropriate, but let us see.
The terms "gnosiology" and "gnoseology" as defined are just rare synonyms of "epistemology" or "philosophy of knowledge". The terms do not denote a distinct subject of inquiry. And encyclopedia articles are separated by topics, not by terms denoting topics. As it stands, the article mostly documents the terms and not a separate subject. It interestingly notes the use of cognates in other languages, but that again is about words and not about an encyclopedic subject.
If the terms were ever used as synonyms of "Psychology of knowledge" or Sociology of knowledge, these would be the subject headings, not the rare "gnosiology".
From what I can see, there is no subject worthy of an encyclopedia article under "gnosiology/gnoseology" other than "epistemology". The terms should be treated in Wiktionary as words, though, as they are. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hesitant disagree. Thank you for your suggestion. But I think Western esotericism in this page may not be considered as the exoteric topic of philsoophical 'epistemology'. Hence i cautiously think the content  on this page does not deserve to be parked under 'epistemolgoy'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Gnoseology is considered equivalent to epistemology by Anglo-Saxon writers only. The beginning statement, that in Italian philosophy the two are considered the same, is plain wrong. 82.84.103.172 (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge or redirect into Epistemology