Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, since I guess I qualify as an "unknown" individual all I can do is recommend the works of Watzlawick, Glaserfeld and Foerster, for starters.Ok teach me constructivism. IIRC it is that scientific theories are constructs that are not necessarily true. As for your version of it, go ahead, but I would like to learn mainstream ideas rather than opinions of "unknown" individuals.
Teach me Christianity! Anything except God will do!A lot of the topics on boards like these are done to death (like the problem of evil, epistemology of religion and free will). But they are places where I seem to learn most philosophy as for me books seem to be easily forgotten if not applied to debate. In any case if you are looking for motivation and are secularist I heard that most advanced philosophy students tend to be non-theistic so what better way to probably deconvert me than by teaching me philsosophy? Anything except logic will do. No ironic remarks please.
Try the Ionian philosophers!Who were the first representational realists (a theory of perception)? Not only in the Western tradition, but in all faiths or schools of thought globally. If you can't answer the global question, what about Westerners? My guess would be someone like Descartes or as he worked on the physiology of vision, or maybe Kant or Locke.
I will do some googling but would like an outline on the forum. After all why bother with a forum unless we are going to use it?Well, since I guess I qualify as an "unknown" individual all I can do is recommend the works of Watzlawick, Glaserfeld and Foerster, for starters.
That could be non-theistic Christianity, or maybe theological non-realism from a Christian perspective. I have heard secular humanism described sas 'Christianity without God".Teach me Christianity! Anything except God will do!
I have heard of them but I thought there were metaphysicians and ethicists rather thean epistemologists. Didn't Locke "invent" epistemology as a systematic discipline in Essay Concerning Human Understanding?Try the Ionian philosophers!
Is this accurate? Supposing it is, I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way. As we base our theories on experience, and experience is of an objective reality (albeit primarily via a brain based model i.e. perception), then our theories are based on an objective reality. So I cannot dismiss claims against objectivism just like that. Take evolution for instance, the theory would suggest that species have developed over time, alongside the claim that there are species etc. I do not see why claims of objectivity have to be dismissed. In fact if we look at perceptual knowledge, why would action based on perception be useful if it did not represent reality to us? We can say the same about space ships etc. Knowledge enables us to manipulate or utilise reality because that reality represents it to us, allowing us to fly to the moon etc.Constructivism has roots in chemistry, education and social constructivism. Constructivism criticizes objectivism, which embraces the belief that a human can come to know external reality (the reality that exists beyond one's own mind). Constructivism holds the opposite view, that the only reality we can know is that which is represented by human thought (assuming a disbelief or lack of faith in a superhuman God). Reality is independent of human thought, but meaning or knowledge is always a human construction.
I would like to brush up on coherentism for starters. IIRC its the idea that beliefs are justified by their coherence with others, rather than foundational beliefs being basic and justifying others. But I have not come across many examples of coherentism in practice.
No that sounds like a good example. Maybe you might have thought of the problem of evil. Certain beliefs about God (being all good etc) do not cohere with beliefs about reality (there being evil and suffering).I hadn't heard the term coherent-ism before, but based on this description I'd say it is in practice everyday.
Well, perhaps that isn't fair. But my wrestling with theology before I gave it all up was a struggle to make my theology coherent and consistent with what I knew of reality.
I think that might be more foundationalist. If you are looking for a basic belief by which to justify others, at least.It wasn't until I admitted that my premises had no basis that I gave it up.
Not sure what else to say.I think we see this everyday on these boards. "My theology is coherent therefore I am right. What? Examine my premises? Never!"
But perhaps I misunderstand.
I thought about all those things. Part of my answer was to abandon the idea that God can actualize (I hate jargon, but sometimes it fits) just anything he wants. He is constrained by who and what he is. I conceived of pan-en-theism and was gratified to discover that others had thought of it too. So forth and so on.No that sounds like a good example. Maybe you might have thought of the problem of evil. Certain beliefs about God (being all good etc) do not cohere with beliefs about reality (there being evil and suffering).
I think that might be more foundationalist. If you are looking for a basic belief by which to justify others, at least.
Not sure what else to say.There is a brief outline of coherentism and foundationalism here.
By and large: yes. It´s not inaccurate, but only as accurate as one paragraph can be in describing an entire philosophy.OK constructivism:
Is this accurate?
From my knowledge radical constructivism doesn´t dispute that those models may represent the world out there in some way. Those models shape and arrange the world out there in the way we need it and want it.Supposing it is, I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way.
Depending on what you mean exactly when saying "based on" I suspect radical constructivism wouldn´t necessarily disagree. It´s just that the parts or statements that appear to be particularly objective are at the same time particularly meaningless.As we base our theories on experience, and experience is of an objective reality (albeit primarily via a brain based model i.e. perception), then our theories are based on an objective reality.
So I cannot dismiss claims against objectivism just like that.
And constructivism posits that there aren´t species - but instead that "species" is a human concept; an attempt to categorize the world out there in a useful manner that matches our needs.Take evolution for instance, the theory would suggest that species have developed over time, alongside the claim that there are species etc.
Because "possibly representing reality in some way" is not the same as being objective.I do not see why claims of objectivity have to be dismissed.
Because rather than "representing reality" it is important to us that we order, categorize and interprete our perceptions and experiences in a way that is useful and meaningful to us.In fact if we look at perceptual knowledge, why would action based on perception be useful if it did not represent reality to us?
I would like to brush up on coherentism for starters. IIRC its the idea that beliefs are justified by their coherence with others, rather than foundational beliefs being basic and justifying others. But I have not come across many examples of coherentism in practice.
There were two main types, natural theology (like the ontological, cosmological and design argument) and revealed theology either through scripture or revelatory experience. Is that right? Natural theology was themore philosophical, but since the advent of science such abstractions have been overtaken by a more concrete experimental based knowledge, right? The only contemporary argument I know of is Plantinga's modal argument for a necessary being. Are there any others I may not have heard of?
What abut Kierkegaard or the 20th C existentialists? Kierkegaard said Christianity "crucified the intellect" (or something similar) because it was irrational to believe in it. What about the likes of Rosenzweig, Buber, Barth, Jaspers etc? How do they stand in relation to epistemology, or philosophy in general (rather than theology)? Were they more concerned with experience rather than attempts at proof of God?
I would argue that models are in the mind but they may represent objective reality in some way.
To each his own reality! For our brains see not, hear not, feel not, but the electrical signals it has LEARNED to interpret in order to make sense of the physical world!That's my view too. We may construct models of reality, but this allows us to understand objective reality from one's perspective. One doesn't need to have a God's-eye view of reality in order to understand reality for what it is. IOWs, having a perspective does not make one unobjective or mistaken.
eudaimonia,
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?