Dear Mr. von Glasersfeld,
Why did you choose to refer to Radical Constructivism as a
Theory of Knowing as opposed to a Philosophy of Knowing? To
me, a theory requires the ability to test, and I am unsure
how you would test Radical Constructivism.
I have always tried to keep RC away from philosophy.
philosophy is pervaded by the fatal error of duplicating the
experience into one inside the experiencer and the other as an
independent structure outside. The Pre-Socratics were dimly
this, Berkeley made it explicit, and Ceccato weathered against
You clearly are still enmeshed in this illusion. What do you
as the result of a test? It can only show whether something
not; and if it works, that in no way entails the
"discovery" of an
external world. The "flat earth" theory worked for millennia
still works if you never leave the plain); Newton's theory was
believed to work for the universe and still works for the
our physical problems; and if you seriously apply RC to your
living, you may find that it works rather well.
Ernst von Glasersfeld