I found von Glasersfeld’s article stimulating. I particularly enjoyed the comment that the unanswerable question whether, or to what extent, any picture our senses "convey" might correspond to the "objective" reality. I was delighted to discover that this is not taken as “fact,” that it is still the crux of all theory of knowledge. What properties objects are assigned by our senses – how real, how accurate are these sensory stipulations? It is not at all obvious that sense-defined determinants do not possess other properties beyond our stipulative definitions, properties that are not perceived by the senses of the stipulators in general (Western majority). Wondering what I might be missing – what might be beyond the capacity of my senses to perceive is a major focus in the journey of my life.
Neuroscientists Trey Hedden and John Gabrieli of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research recent study provides the first neurological evidence that cultural difference extend to brain activity patterns. “People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve basic perceptual tasks. They saw a difference in higher-processing brain areas, not in the parts of the brain involved in early vision. People from different cultures don’t see the world differently, but they think differently about what they see." American brains had to work harder at relative judgments, while East Asian brains found absolute judgments more challenging. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22729220/
If cultural perception is the basis of one’s composition of knowledge, what will be the unifying element for universal “truth”? Whose “truth” becomes “The Truth”?
And then came Kant, shifting our experiences relative to time and space – challenges our senses, our perceptions, and our minds. Perception, interpretation, knowledge, constructs, Truth.
Philosophy - I’m loving it – its definitely not boring!
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Theories of Knowledge
Von Glasersfeld’s "An Introduction to Radical Constructivism” is well seasoned with wit and "isms". I appreciated the basic nature, simplicity, and logic of many of his ideas. I effortlessly agreed with those that I have long held, intuitively and innately, though not cognitively – previously never having thought about them in that manner.
Dominant beliefs in my personal philosophy of life that I have often pondered are:
“The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints.”
“Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, proves no more and no less than just that it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world.”
“It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience.”
“The proponents of an idea, as a rule, explain its non-acceptance differently than do the critics and opponents.”
Simple, Logical and True.
“Our knowledge is useful, relevant, and viable - if it stands up to our experience and enables us to make predictions, to bring about, or, avoid certain phenomena.” Simple, Logical and True.
“Because our ways of experiencing are what they are, we cannot possibly conceive of an unexperienced world.”
I have never been able to conceive what is inconceivable to me, without first being exposed to the possibility of its potential existence. It is my experience that communication of an idea by another - through the exchange of thoughts, use of senses, or exposure to stimuli always occurs prior to contemplation of what had previously been unimaginable.
“The epistemological problem - how we acquire knowledge of reality, and how reliable and "true" that knowledge might be” certainly troubles me. We use thoughts (some resulting from experiential exposure) to construct ideas, and ideas to construct knowledge, and knowledge to construct reality. Since reality is fabricated out of (sometimes competing) individual or group constructs, how do we determine whose reality is the true reality? And what if the true reality is as yet inconceivable?”
Presently, we know with certainty, of the existence of “the unknowable.” Knowledge is a prerequisite for defining reality. Therefore, it is presently impossible to suppose any definition of reality to be true.
I agree with von Glasersfeld, “Our knowledge can never be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. A key fits if it opens the lock. The fit describes a capacity of the key, not of the lock.”
“If we take seriously the evolutionary way of thinking, it could never be organisms or ideas that adapt to reality, but it is always reality which…inexorably annihilates what is not fit to live. In nature, a lack of fitness is invariably fatal; philosophers, however, rarely die of their inadequate ideas.”
Could this be why there are so many Philosophical Schools of Thought and so many philosophers?
After reading this article, I know for certain, that I am not a metaphysical realist. I can embrace some of the components of radical constructivism’s theory of knowledge. However, at present, I lack sufficient data to consider limiting myself to any one "ism" or category philosophical.
Dominant beliefs in my personal philosophy of life that I have often pondered are:
“The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints.”
“Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, proves no more and no less than just that it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world.”
“It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience.”
“The proponents of an idea, as a rule, explain its non-acceptance differently than do the critics and opponents.”
Simple, Logical and True.
“Our knowledge is useful, relevant, and viable - if it stands up to our experience and enables us to make predictions, to bring about, or, avoid certain phenomena.” Simple, Logical and True.
“Because our ways of experiencing are what they are, we cannot possibly conceive of an unexperienced world.”
I have never been able to conceive what is inconceivable to me, without first being exposed to the possibility of its potential existence. It is my experience that communication of an idea by another - through the exchange of thoughts, use of senses, or exposure to stimuli always occurs prior to contemplation of what had previously been unimaginable.
“The epistemological problem - how we acquire knowledge of reality, and how reliable and "true" that knowledge might be” certainly troubles me. We use thoughts (some resulting from experiential exposure) to construct ideas, and ideas to construct knowledge, and knowledge to construct reality. Since reality is fabricated out of (sometimes competing) individual or group constructs, how do we determine whose reality is the true reality? And what if the true reality is as yet inconceivable?”
Presently, we know with certainty, of the existence of “the unknowable.” Knowledge is a prerequisite for defining reality. Therefore, it is presently impossible to suppose any definition of reality to be true.
I agree with von Glasersfeld, “Our knowledge can never be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. A key fits if it opens the lock. The fit describes a capacity of the key, not of the lock.”
“If we take seriously the evolutionary way of thinking, it could never be organisms or ideas that adapt to reality, but it is always reality which…inexorably annihilates what is not fit to live. In nature, a lack of fitness is invariably fatal; philosophers, however, rarely die of their inadequate ideas.”
Could this be why there are so many Philosophical Schools of Thought and so many philosophers?
After reading this article, I know for certain, that I am not a metaphysical realist. I can embrace some of the components of radical constructivism’s theory of knowledge. However, at present, I lack sufficient data to consider limiting myself to any one "ism" or category philosophical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)