Claim. Sang Hun Lee presents Unification epistemology not merely as one more theory but as the synthesis that can resolve the unresolved problems of all prior epistemologies — empiricist skepticism, rationalist dogmatism, Kantian agnosticism, and Marxist reflection theory — by grounding cognition in the principled subject-object relationship between human beings and creation.
Elaboration. The structural ambition is large: Lee promises that Unification epistemology (1) solves what traditional epistemologies left unresolved and (2) is literally unifying, capable of absorbing them (II. Unification Epistemology). The diagnosis is that prior schools failed because they did not understand the relationship between subject of cognition (human being) and object of cognition (all things). Empiricism overweighted the object via sensation; rationalism overweighted the subject via reason; Kant synthesized but ended in agnosticism about the thing-in-itself; Hegel reduced nature to a phase of spirit; Marxism made the relationship merely accidental.
The load-bearing move is theological: ‘only when the significance of God’s creation of human beings and all things has been clarified, can the necessary relationship between human beings and all things become clear.’ From an atheistic position, Lee argues, the subject-object necessity cannot be established at all — human and nature remain accidentally related. The purpose-of-creation supplies what Kant, Hegel, and Marx structurally lacked: a non-accidental ground for why cognition can succeed.
The unification claim has two specific structural payoffs Lee will develop: (a) both subject and object possess content AND form (against Kant, who put content on the object side and form on the subject side; and against Marxism, which put both on the object side); (b) cognition involves both an outer give-and-take (copy/reflection element, agreeing with Marx) and an inner give-and-take (collation against a priori prototypes, agreeing with Kant). The framework therefore claims to retain what was correct in each prior school while supplying the missing principled ground. Critics typically engage on whether the principle-of-creation premise can actually do the philosophical work Lee assigns it, or whether it merely renames the problem.
See also. ut-cognition-as-collation-not-reflection-or-synthesis, ut-critique-of-kantian-agnosticism-via-sungsang-hyungsang, hume-isolated-the-inner-hyungsang-only