When evaluating a worldview and checking for coherence, is one's ontology or epistemology a more fundamental building block? Could anything be more fundamental?
I ask because I heard a criticism stating someone was "putting their activism above their epistemology." I would consider it a fair critique, but that's not the issue.
This got me wondering what should be the highest order fundamental worldview building block. This wouldn't bother me if it weren't made so obvious by the criticism that you can get the order wrong. Clearly, trying to establish morals before establishing if the demands of the moral framework could be realizable or coherently knowable can lead to some seemingly bugnutty insane brands of idealism.
In order for something to be true or knowable in any meaningful way, it should also exist in some meaningful way. In order to evaluate the existence of anything, we need to have a framework to establish if the claim of existence is true or knowable. Seems like an irreconcilable conflict making a coherent and internally justified worldview near impossible. Right?
I'm an armchair philosopher with a fair amount of study, but no formal training. Sorry if this is a basic or silly question. Any thoughts or direction to a proper reading would be appreciated. Thanks.