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)

Modern and Greek episteme are too different to be in the same article IMO
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)

April 2014 tag
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)

Large consensus that this page is biased toward Foucault
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)

--- 1. Bias could be minimized by adding brief summaries of other philosophers' points on episteme. By including a wider range of philosophical viewpoints, the article can offer a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

--- 2.

When grad students come here, it's because they're confused about Foucault. My apologies to the classicists, but the Greek notion has less currency in modern academia than Foucault's usage. Look at the French version of this page: it goes over the Greek roots in a sentence and then proceeds to talk about Foucault exclusively. That's what a lot of people are looking up when they land here.24.15.217.2 (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)