Talk:Episteme

message: This entry should be re-written to eliminate or at least radically minimize the Foucault stuff. The focus should be on the Greek linguistic points, and on the use of the term in Greek philosophy. The Foucault stuff should be ditched, or moved to the Foucault entry.
24.125.27.33 (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, help it then Umpfhut (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

text: I have made a very small contribution in the introduction. Rather than deleting the article to start from scratch, I would suggest to be bold, or simply making a small contribution, like adding a new heading for episteme as a concept in western philosophy. Umpfhut (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Foucault has some very interesting diachronic and descriptive and scientifically testable ideas about the assumptions and limits of systematic knowledge during certain time periods. That is completely alien to the synchronic and a priori Greek notion about the internal nature of knowledge.
This article would be more helpful if it discussed the specific epistemes Foucault proposed. Sadly, his work has apparently not inspired much social scientific followup (but I am no expert).
As noted Foucault's idea has some relationship to other modern thinkers. I would like to see that explored further. 
Burressd (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern and Greek episteme are too different to be in the same article IMO 

message: I’ve removed the original research tag.  I hope that doesn’t seem too  bold? - but
: i)  lack of references isn’t really a main point in the above discussion(s)
: ii)  the tag has been in place quite a while (date=April 2014)
: iii)  the article seems well referenced generally; it’s the Foucault section that attracts this criticism . .
: iv)  . . and in that section, it seems very possible tht all tht is needed is citations for the successive paragraphs of the passage comparing Foucault’s and Kuhn’s accounts.  Or maybe, stated fairly fully as they are, the comparisons are going a bit beyond the sources? - if so, the better approach would be to condense the discussion - rather than reject (delete) it as original.
As an extreme, maybe the series of *paragraphs* should be reduced to a single *sentence* listing the paragraphs’ topics (= the obvious differences).  And if possible a link provided to a fuller discussion of  Piaget’s work.
For clarity, I should remark that I feel the discussion of Foucault’s ideas *is* appropriate in the article.  I disagree with the view above tht the article should limit itself to the term’s meaning in antiquity.  It seems to me likely tht Foucault regarded the classical episteme as a good and important example of what he meant; whether or not that’s a correct or insightful idea, I think students familiar with the term in either application would do well to be fully familiar with the other! 
:- SquisherDa (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   April 2014 tag  

message: It's clear to me that the article is way way too much about Foucault. I even agree with one of the comments here that says that this modern use of the term episteme is a different subject than it's meaning in ancient Greece. Hopefully, some one will find the time to correct this situation. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large consensus that this page is biased toward Foucault