A comparative study of Epistemology and Ontology from the Perspective of Molana and Kant
Subject Areas : Persian language and literature texts
Marzieh Afarinkia
1
,
Fatemeh Heydari
2
,
Zahra Dorri
3
1 - PhD Student, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
3 - Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.
Keywords: Epistemology, Ontology, adaptation, Kant, Rumi,
Abstract :
According to the close connection between epistemology and ontology, it can be said: the foundation of the ontology in each idea is based on its epistemology. Ontology deals with the research about the phenomena that exist in the real world and the attitude of humans towards existence and is based on the ideological view that they have adopted. The thinkers have found that; human cognitive abilities play a significant role in interpreting the phenomena of the universe; they have studied the phenomenon of recognition, its scope, and tools. In this descriptive and analytical study, epistemology and ontology are compared from the perspective of Molana and Kant, and the similarities and differences between these two attitudes are discussed. By considering the opinions of Molana and Kant, we come across two different approaches. Molana considers philosophy insufficient in knowing the facts and defines the whole nature of cognition and epistemology based on metaphysics. In the category of ontology, he believes that absolute existence belongs to the creator of existence, and he is the source of all existence. In his view, humans use sensory and intellectual power to communicate to manifestations of existence, and to communicate with the Supreme Being they use intuitive cognition. Kant's main concern is thought and cognition. Based on this, he believed that without epistemology, we cannot deal with ontology. He claimed that the power of reason alone cannot deal with metaphysical issues. This is even though he believed in metaphysics and did not reject it.
