Talk:Episteme

Comments

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)William Knorpp

At one point the article mentions a prori. Why use a term that has no clear meaning in an encylopeadic article. Further to this the article is confusing and the lead in pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.160.42 (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not how Foucault defined episteme. For Foucault an episteme was the regime of truth that underlay all the discourses of a particular epoch.

This idea seems very similar to the concept of the meme, maybe some parallels can be made

I find it astounding that a concept so fundamental to the history of philosophy can have an entry that is exclusively devoted to the philosophy of a single individual philosopher, and a modern one at that! This page needs serious help.

Well, help it then Umpfhut (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I could not agree more. This page is useless as the lead-in is one line, and the rest of the (stub) article is based on one (modern!!) philosopher! --88.212.81.57 09:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not exactly correct that Kuhn was influenced by Bachelard and his concept of epistemological obstacles. Rather, he was mainly influenced by two other figures in the tradition of historical epistemology (which Bachelard was a part of) - Metzger and Koyré. Cf. Gutting, G. (2003). ”Thomas Kuhn and French philosophy of science”. Thomas Kuhn. T. Nickles. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.38.148.117 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention to Giorgio Agamben's interpretation of the episteme in relation to Kuhn could be made. In his essay What Is A Paradigm? he goes through the concept at great length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.253.112 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it does not discuss this term's long history in western philosophy, the article is so very misleading. Can an entry be simply removed until someone restarts it from scratch? What is here could easily be moved to the Foucault entry.John P. McCaskey (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

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)