|
|
QUESTION 1:
-
- Dear Prof. von Glasersfeld:
I hope you don’t mind contacting you directly, especially
about something you might have already addressed in the past
and I just don’t know it. However, I would very much
appreciate your feedback – even if it is just a pointer to one
of your many written contributions in which you might have
already addressed the issue I am addressing.
I am writing a book which uses constructivism as its cardinal
viewpoint. Btw, a friend of mine who did her PhD here in CA
(Heinz von Foerster was her external examiner) first referred
me to HvF’s and your work years ago – for which I am grateful.
Anyway, here is the issue:
In the Paper “Constructivism: Pre-historical to Post-modern” /
/ (http://mason.gmu.edu/~wwarrick/Portfolio/Products/constructivism.html)
William R. Warrick (George Mason University) writes:
“Thus, there is some paradox in proposing a definition of
constructivism in that its central tenet is that there is no
external truth or knowledge outside of a knower's experience.
Indeed, von Glasersfeld (1989), a radical constructivist,
writes, "To claim that one's theory of knowing is true, in the
traditional sense of an experiencer-independent world, would
be perjury for a radical constructivist" (p. 1).”
Question: Would you be able to support the following
argumentation – if not, I would very much appreciate you
correcting me:
I think that William R. Warrick is wrong in his
interpretation of what von Glasersfeld is actually saying. (It
is, however, an example how quickly one can misunderstand and
be misunderstood – something, I found, happens a lot,
especially in the criticism of constructivism.)
EvG’s statement means to me that we humans cannot construct in
our minds an absolute of reality or truth, or – in other words
“that one’s theory of knowing is true.” He didn’t state that –
and therefore it is also not the “central tenet of
constructivism” – that “there is no external truth or
knowledge outside of a knower's experience.” All EvG and
constructivism is claiming is that we humans are not able to
construct an “absolute truth” with our minds. This also means
there is no paradox as William R. Warrick claims above.
I look forward to your response. Thank you so very much in
advance.
Kindest regards,
Horst Lehrheuer
Dipl.-Ing. Horst Lehrheuer
156 Flynn Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
LHorst@mindspring.com
- ANSWER 1:
-
-
Dear Mr. Lehrheuer,
Your objection to Warrick's position is close to what I
would say. I would add that "Truth" can pertain only
to an observer's description
of something - and if you posit an observer who describes
Reality, you are in the domain of constructivism. I
would also add that there
is a viable concept of "truth" (never absolute) within the
constructivist Model: compatibility of a description with
the actual
experience.
Thank you for the reference to Warrick's book, of which I
had not heard!
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld-
BACK |
TORNA INDIETRO
|
|
