Over the last week, we have been grappling with the "problem" von Glasersfeld presents of the "unexperienced world." I do not see this as a problem at all, and that von Glasersfeld has misconstrued the entire question.
The "problem," as von Glasersfeld puts it, is that "we cannot possibly (rationally) conceive of an unexperienced world." I do not think that this statement is correct. We, as a species, possess an unlimited ability to conceive of things, to conceptualize, to rationalize. It is how our species has gotten to where it is today -- through advancements of conceptualizations, a process of developing theories, testing them, refining them, combining them, and generating ever more knowledge. It is how we have brought our understanding of the world to where it is today, how we have created the very words we are using to communicate and explain these concepts, the computers through which I am typing and you are reading, the electricity that powers the computer, the refinement of the materials to produce it, etc.
To reference the argument that Professor Johnson has been attempting to reconstruct, I hit a snag on premise 9, "An “unconceptualized apple” is not a concept." This is, I think, a false statement, because of the phrase "unconceptualized apple." There cannot exist an "unconceptualized apple." Simply the word "apple" contains the concept of apple, which we necessarily conceptualized, experienced or not. By invoking the very concept of apple in the use of the term, the "unconceptualized" qualifier has been negated.
One might argue that the terms "unexperienced" and "unconceptualized" are synonymous, thus negating my argument above. I think this is false, a misuse of terms. We can have concepts of things we have never experienced -- concepts of loss without ever having lost, concepts of unicorns without ever having experienced a unicorn. Though perhaps most damning is that of faith, of belief in a god without evidence (or despite evidence to the contrary). The mere fact that we have a concept of a thing like a god, and that some people can accept it as real despite the utter lack of evidence or experience to back up the belief in the concept, represents perhaps the most prevalent example of the conceptualization of the unexperienced, reflecting the gulf between our experiences and our concepts.
To end with a question: Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Social Construction
Emily asked, "What is the relationship between social constructs and cognitive constructs of knowledge?"
I would argue that social constructs are the result of cognitive constructs. As we, as a species, began to create these sorts of cognitive constructs that we currently hold, one of the natural uses of this ordering was to create a system to organize communities. As our species developed in terms of cognitive ability and began to build more complex systems of knowledge by which to understand the world around us, we built increasingly complex systems of organization, chief among them being the written word, which enabled the development of our complex systems of language, a requisite for mathematics, science, philosophy, government, religion, etc, etc, etc.
These systems became widely accepted (the precursors of our society today) through the appeal of the mental processes that went in to their creation. It is a human universal, the creation of communities and societies, for while each society, culture, community, what have you, looks different, and has its own rules and regulations, all of them were generated by the same cognitive processes.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist explain social constructions like governments, religion, etc?
I would argue that social constructs are the result of cognitive constructs. As we, as a species, began to create these sorts of cognitive constructs that we currently hold, one of the natural uses of this ordering was to create a system to organize communities. As our species developed in terms of cognitive ability and began to build more complex systems of knowledge by which to understand the world around us, we built increasingly complex systems of organization, chief among them being the written word, which enabled the development of our complex systems of language, a requisite for mathematics, science, philosophy, government, religion, etc, etc, etc.
These systems became widely accepted (the precursors of our society today) through the appeal of the mental processes that went in to their creation. It is a human universal, the creation of communities and societies, for while each society, culture, community, what have you, looks different, and has its own rules and regulations, all of them were generated by the same cognitive processes.
To end with a question: How might a radical constructivist explain social constructions like governments, religion, etc?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Political Opposition, and the US War Effort
I'm not sure how many of you have heard, but it would appear that a violent uprising in Kyrgyzstan has overthrown the government.
Another example of a repressive regime falling when they tried to push too hard on their population. Of course, this repressive regime happened to have the blessing of the US government. Lovely how we can support a government whose people get so fed up that they take to the streets in opposition, engaging in open warfare with government troops.
And what was the final straw that broke the camel's back, the last insult that put people over the edge? Doubling the cost of power and heating. Is it just me, or do commodities like heat and electricity seem like things that should be rights rather than privileges? Rather like, oh... health care and higher education. But I digress.
What does this event say about the conduct of our wars abroad? Our support for regimes that have proved time and again to be wildly unpopular by the people who they rule, yet get the support of our government in our "war to spread democracy," even when these governments try their damnedest to stifle democracy within their own nations?
Another example of a repressive regime falling when they tried to push too hard on their population. Of course, this repressive regime happened to have the blessing of the US government. Lovely how we can support a government whose people get so fed up that they take to the streets in opposition, engaging in open warfare with government troops.
And what was the final straw that broke the camel's back, the last insult that put people over the edge? Doubling the cost of power and heating. Is it just me, or do commodities like heat and electricity seem like things that should be rights rather than privileges? Rather like, oh... health care and higher education. But I digress.
What does this event say about the conduct of our wars abroad? Our support for regimes that have proved time and again to be wildly unpopular by the people who they rule, yet get the support of our government in our "war to spread democracy," even when these governments try their damnedest to stifle democracy within their own nations?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Time As A Unit of Measurement
From my reading, I didn't find a precedent for this (if I missed it, please enlighten me), but I would like to explore, for a moment, this thought I've been bouncing around my mind: time is a unit of measurement.
What does this mean? Time, as a unit of measurement, is a system by which we measure the duration of events. It has no independent entity of its own, and does not "flow," as it is merely a framework in which we measure events.
To draw an analogy, let us take distance. Does a meter or a mile "exist?" Of course it does, but the discussion of a meter or a mile is useless without reference to some object being measured. A mile does not exist independently of our application of that unit to indicate a certain length within the world. Similarly, time does not exist independent of events to measure. Just as we can divide distance by large and small sums (meters, kilometers, inches, yards, miles, light years, etc.), time, too, can be divided and examined in varying units (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, millenia, etc.).
What might this say of time's existence absent an observer to measure it? It continues to be, just not as TIME. Time, distance, weight, all units of measurement, EXIST regardless of the presence of a being to measure such. The universe continues to exist absent an observer. These units of measurement, such as distance and time, are merely constructed systems of knowledge from which we can seek to understand the universe around us. While the universe (or, to be fair, the multiverse) exists independent of our measurements and knowledge of it, our knowledge comes from constructing the frame work to understand it.
To end with a question: is the concept of time as a unit of measuring duration of events a useful conception of time? Or does it miss something fundamental to our understanding of "time?"
What does this mean? Time, as a unit of measurement, is a system by which we measure the duration of events. It has no independent entity of its own, and does not "flow," as it is merely a framework in which we measure events.
To draw an analogy, let us take distance. Does a meter or a mile "exist?" Of course it does, but the discussion of a meter or a mile is useless without reference to some object being measured. A mile does not exist independently of our application of that unit to indicate a certain length within the world. Similarly, time does not exist independent of events to measure. Just as we can divide distance by large and small sums (meters, kilometers, inches, yards, miles, light years, etc.), time, too, can be divided and examined in varying units (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, centuries, millenia, etc.).
What might this say of time's existence absent an observer to measure it? It continues to be, just not as TIME. Time, distance, weight, all units of measurement, EXIST regardless of the presence of a being to measure such. The universe continues to exist absent an observer. These units of measurement, such as distance and time, are merely constructed systems of knowledge from which we can seek to understand the universe around us. While the universe (or, to be fair, the multiverse) exists independent of our measurements and knowledge of it, our knowledge comes from constructing the frame work to understand it.
To end with a question: is the concept of time as a unit of measuring duration of events a useful conception of time? Or does it miss something fundamental to our understanding of "time?"
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Origins of Feminism
Sarah asked: "What do you think the feminist movement sprung from? Could it have been envy or jealous, or something else?"
This question is much more complex than it may seem, and requires a complex answer to do it justice.
As a political movement, feminism traces its roots back to the late 19th century. In the changing, industrializing world, there was less of a need for women to be dedicated solely to the raising of their children. Industrialization, coupled with the development of the public school system, meant that women had less duties at home. They were no longer required to produce everything the household needed and educate the children. As a result, women began to receive an education, and with that growing education came an awareness of their status as second-class citizens.
The original feminist movement, the suffragette movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, was, I believe, based not so much on envy or jealousy, but on righteous outrage in the face of a clear injustice. As barriers fell, and women proved themselves to be just as intelligent and capable of men, given the opportunity to do so, it came as a natural consequence that they would be given the right to vote.
The 1960's saw a resurgence of the feminist movement. African Americans stood up to the continued injustices inflicted upon them 100 years after their supposed freeing of slavery, and women joined their ranks to press for the removal of institutional biases against them. Again, this is not envy, but a reaction to oppression of a historically underprivileged group of people by the (predominantly white male) group that was in power.
And so we come to the feminism today. It is, I think, hard to truly define what "feminism" means, as it has blossomed into a very wide-ranging movement, fighting, among other things, against workplace discrimination against women, sexual assault and harassment of women, discrimination against minorities (and minority women in particular), discrimination against homosexuals, etc. The key here is that it the fight has its same roots -- to win for an underprivileged group of people the right of equal access to resources (government involvement, education, etc) so that these groups are given equal opportunity to succeed.
To end with a question: In what ways might questions of civil rights be questions of envy or jealousy, and are these legitimate positions to put forward?
This question is much more complex than it may seem, and requires a complex answer to do it justice.
As a political movement, feminism traces its roots back to the late 19th century. In the changing, industrializing world, there was less of a need for women to be dedicated solely to the raising of their children. Industrialization, coupled with the development of the public school system, meant that women had less duties at home. They were no longer required to produce everything the household needed and educate the children. As a result, women began to receive an education, and with that growing education came an awareness of their status as second-class citizens.
The original feminist movement, the suffragette movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, was, I believe, based not so much on envy or jealousy, but on righteous outrage in the face of a clear injustice. As barriers fell, and women proved themselves to be just as intelligent and capable of men, given the opportunity to do so, it came as a natural consequence that they would be given the right to vote.
The 1960's saw a resurgence of the feminist movement. African Americans stood up to the continued injustices inflicted upon them 100 years after their supposed freeing of slavery, and women joined their ranks to press for the removal of institutional biases against them. Again, this is not envy, but a reaction to oppression of a historically underprivileged group of people by the (predominantly white male) group that was in power.
And so we come to the feminism today. It is, I think, hard to truly define what "feminism" means, as it has blossomed into a very wide-ranging movement, fighting, among other things, against workplace discrimination against women, sexual assault and harassment of women, discrimination against minorities (and minority women in particular), discrimination against homosexuals, etc. The key here is that it the fight has its same roots -- to win for an underprivileged group of people the right of equal access to resources (government involvement, education, etc) so that these groups are given equal opportunity to succeed.
To end with a question: In what ways might questions of civil rights be questions of envy or jealousy, and are these legitimate positions to put forward?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)