Ontology aims at knowledge of what is.
Philosophy inquires after our way of knowing.
How do we know what is?
In what way do we know what is?
A proper epistemology arrives at the best way of knowing (what is).
The quality of this knowing evidently influences the content of the knowledge.
So ontology is subservient to epistemology. What is, is dependent on how we know.
This does not mean that if we know nothing, nothing is - we can not speak of nothing at all.
but it means that if we know something, we know it as something.
We do no longer need to focus on the correctness of our ontology. It is impossible to have an objective view of what is. The question has become one of the quality of knowledge - its value to us. This criterium is in line with what we have come to know about knowledge. A proper epistemology then, causes us to throw out the traditional idea of ontology, as a description of what is, as it is - and moves us to embrace ontology as an extention of epistemology.
The study of what is, is now the study of what we cause there to be, by controlling our gaze.
Secretly enclosed, this has always been the true nature of science. Scientific method is the control of our gaze, to perceive exactly in such a way as produces the type of results we consider proper.
Why do we consider these results proper? It is dependent on the quality that we value most greatly: consistency of results. Results are accepted and rejected based on their consistency in occurring.
Religion is another way of formulaing ontology, another way of prioritizing results. In religion, the exaltedness of the results count greater than the consistency in which they occur. Results, measurements, are classified in terms of how they move the beholder. A question of the nature of the espitemology. One is not necessarily truer than the other - science is the ontology of consistency in human perception. Religion is the ontology of the limit of human projection.
Neither science nor religion operates at the level of epistemology - neither field of thought models its own criteria and includes this model in itself.
Philosophy must know itself. This means: knowing of knowing - a knowing knowing itself - thereby knowing it to be with some precision.
When we know how we know, we know what we are. In this way we are confident that what is, must be. This certainty is our own work. There is no such certainty except in the case of the self-knowing knowing.
We see that ontological certainty is equal to will.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "