If philosophy always saw there as being an external world until thinkers like Kant came along. Where do you think the field may go in terms of theory after these constructivist ideas?
Kant does not, of course, deny an external world. In fact, he mentions two: 1) the objective world of systems and objects that are the contents of our shared, public experience, and 2) the 'noumenal' world of metaphysically ultimate reality, "things in themselves," about which we can say nothing specific at all (other than that it is a necessary condition of the possibility of our experience being as it is).
Just my observation: ideas tend to go in cycles. So if I had to guess what would happen after constructivism, I'd say that people will most likely react to it and go back to a rigid realism. I don't think that Plato's cycles of rulership are that far off... thus, my guess is that the next idea will look a lot like tyranny.
Sad thought. I'd like to think we could craft a fallibilist realism (or constructivist realism, as Alison later calls it) that is sufficiently appealing that, instead of reactively swinging from one simplistic exaggeration to another, we could grow into a little nuance.
Kant does not, of course, deny an external world. In fact, he mentions two: 1) the objective world of systems and objects that are the contents of our shared, public experience, and 2) the 'noumenal' world of metaphysically ultimate reality, "things in themselves," about which we can say nothing specific at all (other than that it is a necessary condition of the possibility of our experience being as it is).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust my observation: ideas tend to go in cycles. So if I had to guess what would happen after constructivism, I'd say that people will most likely react to it and go back to a rigid realism. I don't think that Plato's cycles of rulership are that far off... thus, my guess is that the next idea will look a lot like tyranny.
ReplyDeleteSad thought. I'd like to think we could craft a fallibilist realism (or constructivist realism, as Alison later calls it) that is sufficiently appealing that, instead of reactively swinging from one simplistic exaggeration to another, we could grow into a little nuance.
ReplyDelete