I like it as an intellectual challenge. Like all good philosophical pursuits, it first deconstructs the notion that something is "known," and therefore, "already dealt with," and therefore "should not be questioned." Questioning the very foundation of how we think and interact with the world is not only an interesting pursuit, but a very difficult one. Along the lines of "the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite," we encounter, "the mind cannot experience that which it does not experience." To understand this notion enough to discuss it (and inevitably reject it in day-to-day pragmatism) I think only contributes to productive qualities in a thinker. Too much in today's society people operate under preconceived notions to the point where they stop listening, learning, and growing. Whether any philosophical theory is "correct" or not isn't the point for me in discussing it. As for RC's intrinsic value, I'm drawn to it the same way I'm open to discussing the possibilities of what happens after death. Yes, we can never know for sure. But how we feel about it may impact how we carry ourselves in life. Operating under RC views, I personally feel a bit more freedom. I like thinking that I have a little more control over how my world is constructed. In a way, it makes me feel more connected to my surroundings, in that our interaction becomes more of a reciprocal process. Also, it's fun recognizing and then contributing to a logically sound argument that literally goes against everything we can see, hear, touch, etc. That we are even capable of making such arguments for it only makes it more compelling.
RC does have an appealing amount of self-doubt. It seems the embodiment of intellectual humility -- I'm not sure that's true, but it seems so. As a teacher, I've had to be reminded this year that a student's construct of the classroom may not agree with mine but is still important to consider. RC keeps that need at the forefront of the mind.
Like Alyssa, I also appreciate RC as an intellectual challenge that can have real consequences on how we live, regardless of whether or not it is True or even fits my perceptions. I also find it refreshing to discuss a Western philosophical idea that does not make any ontological claims, and moreover assumes that it is not possible to do so (using only knowledge).
If there is anything to like about the theory, it is that it comes part and parcel with plenty of intellectual humility (in some aspects). Other than that, I have to say I find it very disagreeable. Realism works. Realism "fits" and quite frankly I find something egocentric about the whole theory. There are too many questions raised by RC,and not enough answers.
Radical Constructivism seems a bit too much like socialism to me. Its one of those, very well in theory, impossible to put in practice type things.
It by definition incorporates an extremely strong sense of fallibilism. It also mandates intellectual charity, and some of the other intellectual virtues. Unfortunately, the name constructivism is somewhat verbally ironic, since a constructivist must spend most of their time tearing down their theories, and theoretically constructing new ones.
I wonder if RC might agree with your suggestion that we “…interact with the world…” and not interact with our world. ‘The’ implies an objective state of affairs; Ernst might claim that such thoughts of ‘worlds’ are reserved for fictional tales and poetic verse.
Is there a difference between the experiential ‘world’ you construct, and the world with which you interact?
I am intrigued by your suggestion that RC is, or presents, a “logically sound argument” – what form might this argument take? Can you ‘construct’ this argument?
Sharon,
For Ernst, all understanding is a matter of interpretive construction; yet he claims there exists a danger of being misunderstood. Does R.C. possess certain immutable tenets that constitute an “unconventional way of thinking”?
Lisa,
Are we absolutely certain that R.C. “…does not make any ontological claims…” - And, if so, does this certainty amount to an inductive truth claim – e.g., if both you and I agree that we might know something (In this case, R.C. does not make ontological claims) is our knowledge a “demand for obedience"?
Ernst is certain that he exists, certain of his constructions, and claims that we cannot know anything outside of our individual constructions. Can Ernst rightfully claim ontological agnosticism and know with certainty that he exists; that he is in a state of being? (Silliman and Johnson refer to this as a having a “minimal ontology”)
Michael.
Ernst is a wily character; somehow he has managed to convince us that his theory is a humble alternative to Fallibilistic Realism with an absolute truth claim – “we cannot know anything with certainty”.
What are the potential dangers of a system of thought that routinely denies an objective state of affairs – specifically, how do we account for social responsibility and ethical concerns?
To explore the idea that Ernst seems trapped in a Cartesian circular argument - I wrote a (hopefully somewhat humorous) paper entitled “The Importance of Being Ernst” where I challenge Ernst’s notion of fitness and viability (key example) – the paper also references Silliman’s and Johnson’s book Bridges. It is posted on my blog if anyone might be interested.
Keane, Matt only gave us this blog prompt because we've spent the last two weeks describing what we didn't like about RC. No worries -- there are no converts in our class. ;)
At the very least, it is a wake-up call to how close one may find themselves to believing that they have absolute knowledge about something that you didn't realize you believed. R.C. is a good way to make yourself reflect on what you REALLY know, and to re-evaluate your circumstances. You just have to forget about it at some point or you will go crazy.
9 comments:
I like it as an intellectual challenge. Like all good philosophical pursuits, it first deconstructs the notion that something is "known," and therefore, "already dealt with," and therefore "should not be questioned." Questioning the very foundation of how we think and interact with the world is not only an interesting pursuit, but a very difficult one. Along the lines of "the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite," we encounter, "the mind cannot experience that which it does not experience." To understand this notion enough to discuss it (and inevitably reject it in day-to-day pragmatism) I think only contributes to productive qualities in a thinker.
Too much in today's society people operate under preconceived notions to the point where they stop listening, learning, and growing. Whether any philosophical theory is "correct" or not isn't the point for me in discussing it.
As for RC's intrinsic value, I'm drawn to it the same way I'm open to discussing the possibilities of what happens after death. Yes, we can never know for sure. But how we feel about it may impact how we carry ourselves in life. Operating under RC views, I personally feel a bit more freedom. I like thinking that I have a little more control over how my world is constructed. In a way, it makes me feel more connected to my surroundings, in that our interaction becomes more of a reciprocal process.
Also, it's fun recognizing and then contributing to a logically sound argument that literally goes against everything we can see, hear, touch, etc. That we are even capable of making such arguments for it only makes it more compelling.
RC does have an appealing amount of self-doubt. It seems the embodiment of intellectual humility -- I'm not sure that's true, but it seems so.
As a teacher, I've had to be reminded this year that a student's construct of the classroom may not agree with mine but is still important to consider. RC keeps that need at the forefront of the mind.
Like Alyssa, I also appreciate RC as an intellectual challenge that can have real consequences on how we live, regardless of whether or not it is True or even fits my perceptions. I also find it refreshing to discuss a Western philosophical idea that does not make any ontological claims, and moreover assumes that it is not possible to do so (using only knowledge).
RC shook me from my naive realist slumbers.
If there is anything to like about the theory, it is that it comes part and parcel with plenty of intellectual humility (in some aspects). Other than that, I have to say I find it very disagreeable.
Realism works. Realism "fits" and quite frankly I find something egocentric about the whole theory. There are too many questions raised by RC,and not enough answers.
Radical Constructivism seems a bit too much like socialism to me. Its one of those, very well in theory, impossible to put in practice type things.
It by definition incorporates an extremely strong sense of fallibilism. It also mandates intellectual charity, and some of the other intellectual virtues. Unfortunately, the name constructivism is somewhat verbally ironic, since a constructivist must spend most of their time tearing down their theories, and theoretically constructing new ones.
Afglasser,
I wonder if RC might agree with your suggestion that we “…interact with the world…” and not interact with our world. ‘The’ implies an objective state of affairs; Ernst might claim that such thoughts of ‘worlds’ are reserved for fictional tales and poetic verse.
Is there a difference between the experiential ‘world’ you construct, and the world with which you interact?
I am intrigued by your suggestion that RC is, or presents, a “logically sound argument” – what form might this argument take? Can you ‘construct’ this argument?
Sharon,
For Ernst, all understanding is a matter of interpretive construction; yet he claims there exists a danger of being misunderstood. Does R.C. possess certain immutable tenets that constitute an “unconventional way of thinking”?
Lisa,
Are we absolutely certain that R.C. “…does not make any ontological claims…” - And, if so, does this certainty amount to an inductive truth claim – e.g., if both you and I agree that we might know something (In this case, R.C. does not make ontological claims) is our knowledge a “demand for obedience"?
Ernst is certain that he exists, certain of his constructions, and claims that we cannot know anything outside of our individual constructions. Can Ernst rightfully claim ontological agnosticism and know with certainty that he exists; that he is in a state of being? (Silliman and Johnson refer to this as a having a “minimal ontology”)
Michael.
Ernst is a wily character; somehow he has managed to convince us that his theory is a humble alternative to Fallibilistic Realism with an absolute truth claim – “we cannot know anything with certainty”.
What are the potential dangers of a system of thought that routinely denies an objective state of affairs – specifically, how do we account for social responsibility and ethical concerns?
To explore the idea that Ernst seems trapped in a Cartesian circular argument - I wrote a (hopefully somewhat humorous) paper entitled “The Importance of Being Ernst” where I challenge Ernst’s notion of fitness and viability (key example) – the paper also references Silliman’s and Johnson’s book Bridges. It is posted on my blog if anyone might be interested.
Keane,
Matt only gave us this blog prompt because we've spent the last two weeks describing what we didn't like about RC. No worries -- there are no converts in our class. ;)
At the very least, it is a wake-up call to how close one may find themselves to believing that they have absolute knowledge about something that you didn't realize you believed. R.C. is a good way to make yourself reflect on what you REALLY know, and to re-evaluate your circumstances. You just have to forget about it at some point or you will go crazy.
Post a Comment