"Every Experience is an experience of something." This seems so obvious that it would seem to be a truism, as "everything that is said is said by someone." And yet, it would seem to present quite a challenge to the metaphysical agnostic.
If this statement is true, that every experience is an experience of something, then would it not necessitate a world beyond our own consciousness to experience? And if it is false, well... radical constructivism implodes into solipsism. This seems fairly important for a philosophy whose basic tenet is a focus on "experience" rather than "reality."
This would seem, at first, to perhaps be a false dichotomy. Without something to experience, there can be no experience (unless you're a solipsist, in which case you're the only thing around -- and we can all agree that this idea is absurd). Why, then, is the radical constructivist so intent on denying the real world? Perhaps denying is too strong a word, but given how radical constructivists so love to attack realism as dogmatic and absurd, it seems ingenuous to try to maintain this agnosticism while constantly attacking and mocking one side of the equation, and ignoring the other.
I can already see how the radical constructivist might respond. "I simply do not understand constructivism." And thus, it falls into the trap of hypocrisy. This statement implies that anyone who "fully understands" radical constructivism would accept it dogmatically, unquestioningly. And on this ground I reject it. A philosophy that is so quick to act exactly as the system which it proposes to reject and offer an alternative to, particularly when it brushes off its criticism as being simply "misunderstood," is both academically dishonest, and frankly uninteresting for discussion.
To end with a question: is the above rejection of radical constructivism justified? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment