Questions about constructivism
I found myself tied in a knot over constructivism. Don't we always assume that interpretation of facts is possible only in the setting of rules (for interpreting)? Constructivists don't believe we construct the world by fiat.
So does constructivism picture a dual role for consciousness? One part of us is within the world constructing, and another part is beyond this dream world creating the rules?
So does constructivism picture a dual role for consciousness? One part of us is within the world constructing, and another part is beyond this dream world creating the rules?
Comments (3)
Forget this academic preponderance and just proceed to the act of interpreting information that's important. This is my approach, I suspect nearly everyone on this Forum will disagree with me, but what do you get at the end of the day after you have followed this preponderance into its most narrow abyss? I have already answered this question, there are enough important things for me to comprehend, I don't have time to get stuck on these kind of questions.
I think I need to go back and lay out political constructivism a little better.
Making predictions is an interesting topic. Who can do it infallibly? Nevertheless, I would argue that probable anticipation is a duty of philosophy. Does one need to predict to be able to act? In some sense I think we do, but here the object is not so much events per se, but the effectiveness of social action. I think one must be able to see contradiction arise from the being of things in order to gain skill in prediction. As always we must be cautious that our pursuit of theory is not, as it is for so many who call themselves philosophers, an excuse to evade reality or responsibility.