Does Hans succeed in avoiding all ontological/metaphysical assumptions?
This question has posed quite a challenge for me because I tend to get the terms epistemology and metaphysics confused and sometimes, the definitions can intertwine with another. However to answer this question thoroughly, we must begin from the basics. Epistemology more or less, is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. It addresses of what knowledge is, how it is acquired, what people know, and how do we know what we know? This field can be debatable because how do we know what knowledge is, and what constitutes as knowledge in relativity to humans. In other words, how do we know what knowledge truly is? On the other hand, metaphysics investigates the principles of reality transcending those of particular science. Ontology the branch of metaphysics we are analyzing in this situation studies the nature of being and their relations. Now we have the components to solve the puzzle and that is if Hans successfully described and defended an “epistemology” without metaphysics. In general, I feel, as Hans did not successfully defend what he should have defended. The reason why is because I feel as though Russell and him just went on a never-ending tangent. They had made some good points, but lacked an ending to their conversation, thus not solving an epistemological/metaphysical claim in relativity to Ernst Von Glasersfeld.
1.Since I am a little confused about the first question, could someone give me his or her perspective on the first question?
Dear Ms. Bridges,
Primarily, I would like to apologize for being so offensive to your grading system by analyzing you so harshly. You have pointed out many key points on my previous letter that I have sent you and it does seem like you do have some knowledge on the subject of philosophy. I do completely understand that I received the grade that I deserved because as a teacher myself, I have been in similar situations. Honestly, I would never assume that I am the greatest creative writer or that I deserved a better grade than what I earned. A grade only states what a person’s competency is within the course, and mine seemed to be average. Thank you for not taking my letter personally and I would be delighted to attend you dinner party. I hope you are in the mood to dance.
Most Sincerely,
Jules Randolph Govier
From the letter at the end of the book (Alison to Jules), does it seem that they have a better relationship in respect to being colleagues?
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Book Review on Philosophy of Law by Roscoe Pound
Philosophy of Law by Roscoe Pound presents the foundation of what Jurisprudence is and how it functions within the legal systems around the country. The book is clear and concise, giving the audience a clear perspective of what the subject, even if there is no prior knowledge with this field. Pound, a former Harvard Law student and scholar, brings an immense amount of knowledge about the history of the legal system (originated in the 18th century) while intertwining the basic concepts of law to create a concise summation of Jurisprudence. As one of the greatest Jurisprudence scholars in the United States his thoughts embrace the two great legal systems in the world, the Roman-civil law and the Anglo American Law which are significant jurisprudential writings of Western Europe and the United States, and a wide range of European/American Philosophy.
Some may ask the common questions, what is Jurisprudence or as some may refer to the subject, legal philosophy or philosophy of law? As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law which encompasses branches of Law such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and critical legal studies. Jurisprudence began in the 18th century and primarily focused on the nature of law, civil law, and the law of nations. It can also be further broken down into categories both by the questions scholars seek to address and by the common theories of Jurisprudence (schools of thought regarding how those questions are to be best answered.
In regards to the book, Pound does give a concise overview of the historical aspects of jurisprudence, which I found to be extremely interesting. Jurisprudence originated in Ancient Rome, even if at its origins the discipline was a “periti” in the jus of traditional law, which is a body of oral laws and customs verbally transmitted from father to sun. Praetors established a workable body of laws by judging whether or not singular cases were capable of being prosecuted either by the edicta, the annual pronunciation of prosecutable offense, or in extraordinary situations, additions made to the edicta. An iudex (modern day-jury) then would judge a remedy according to the facts of the case.
Their sentences were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but effectively it was an activity that, apart from formally reconsidering for each case what precisely was traditionally in the legal habits, soon turned also to a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to the newer social instances. The law was then implemented with new evolutive Institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional scheme. Praetors were replaced in 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. The admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.
Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and the activity constantly became more academic. In the age from the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant literature was produced by some notable groups including the Proculians and Sabinians. The degree of scientific depth of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times and reached still unrivaled peaks of skill. After the 3rd century, Jurisprudence became more bureaucratic, with few notable authors. It was during the Byzantine Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was born.
In general the book was extremely interesting but is also very challenging because the subject matter was just difficult to comprehend at some points. Also, this topic was more of an introduction and does not go into the topic at a microscopic level but more of a macroscopic level. Because of the terminology, I would highly recommend that anyone interested in this subject would either have a legal or philosophical dictionary to clarify any words that seem unknown and to accompany in the readings.
Some may ask the common questions, what is Jurisprudence or as some may refer to the subject, legal philosophy or philosophy of law? As stated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law which encompasses branches of Law such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and critical legal studies. Jurisprudence began in the 18th century and primarily focused on the nature of law, civil law, and the law of nations. It can also be further broken down into categories both by the questions scholars seek to address and by the common theories of Jurisprudence (schools of thought regarding how those questions are to be best answered.
In regards to the book, Pound does give a concise overview of the historical aspects of jurisprudence, which I found to be extremely interesting. Jurisprudence originated in Ancient Rome, even if at its origins the discipline was a “periti” in the jus of traditional law, which is a body of oral laws and customs verbally transmitted from father to sun. Praetors established a workable body of laws by judging whether or not singular cases were capable of being prosecuted either by the edicta, the annual pronunciation of prosecutable offense, or in extraordinary situations, additions made to the edicta. An iudex (modern day-jury) then would judge a remedy according to the facts of the case.
Their sentences were supposed to be simple interpretations of the traditional customs, but effectively it was an activity that, apart from formally reconsidering for each case what precisely was traditionally in the legal habits, soon turned also to a more equitable interpretation, coherently adapting the law to the newer social instances. The law was then implemented with new evolutive Institutiones (legal concepts), while remaining in the traditional scheme. Praetors were replaced in 3rd century BC by a laical body of prudentes. The admission to this body was conditional upon proof of competence or experience.
Under the Roman Empire, schools of law were created, and the activity constantly became more academic. In the age from the early Roman Empire to the 3rd century, a relevant literature was produced by some notable groups including the Proculians and Sabinians. The degree of scientific depth of the studies was unprecedented in ancient times and reached still unrivaled peaks of skill. After the 3rd century, Jurisprudence became more bureaucratic, with few notable authors. It was during the Byzantine Empire (5th century) that legal studies were once again undertaken in depth, and it is from this cultural movement that Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis was born.
In general the book was extremely interesting but is also very challenging because the subject matter was just difficult to comprehend at some points. Also, this topic was more of an introduction and does not go into the topic at a microscopic level but more of a macroscopic level. Because of the terminology, I would highly recommend that anyone interested in this subject would either have a legal or philosophical dictionary to clarify any words that seem unknown and to accompany in the readings.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Re: Michelle Webb (4/25)
Q:The question that I am asking you is, in school if there were no grading system, how would students be able to be graded and would it be a better alternative?
In response to your question(s) I do believe that grading within colleges can be biased in some situations. For example, in some classes the one who sucks up to the professor gets a better grade over the student who works harder but does not participate during class. This is just one little example on how grading can be extremely unfair and biased in some situations. Truly what is a grade? Does a grade reflect what type of person you are or does it portray your overall competency in the subject. I would have to say in most grading systems, your overall competency in the subject is what will earn you an excellent grade. Professors truly like to see the student that will work hard in order to achieve an excellent grade and even sometimes getting to know the professor at a personal level wont hurt at all. However there is a term that we are well aware of and that is the "teachers pet". For those who do not know who the teachers pet is, usually it is a person that will do anything the professor wants, in laments terms this would be known as "sucking up". However who is to tell you that you are a D+ writer or a C- mathematician? Just because a professor earned a doctoral degree (PhD), which in many cases is a research degree does not mean they have full competence in the subject. They may have competence through what they have experienced and researched but they do not have competence in everything (which some believe they do). Ever since my collegiate career began, I have not had any professors that were unfair to me. Each and every one of them has stated what they expect out of their students and how their grading system functions on the first day of classes. You know what to expect out of all of them on day 1 and if you do not like their teaching style, drop the class, or look on a professor ratings website (www.ratemyprofessors.com) to see how other students liked or disliked this professor. However I have experienced students that would purposely suck up to a professor, doing anything to please them. They would agree with them on everything even if they were wrong, they would ask the most ridiculous questions, and even try to have lunch with them in their office to know them at an ultra personal level. This for an example should not constitute on who receives the better grade because being the professors best friend shouldn't equate as anything that would affect the students grade. What should affect the students grade is if he or she completes all of the assigned work, studies hard for the tests, attends the class when it is scheduled, and participates in class (If it is part of the grade). If all of these expectations are met, then the student should receive an excellent grade being a B+,A-,or an A.
While on the other hand I do understand when you gave the scenario when students were appealing their grades in an attempt to receive one better than the present. One though crosses my mind when I think about this. First and foremost, why is this student appealing the grade? Was it because this individual was treated unfairly due to their gender, age, or race? Or was it because that they felt like they deserved the grade even though they did not? In my opinion, you should not be able to appeal a grade because the professors authority should be respected, thus not being challenged. In most cases the individual is either a lazy student or their "sucking up" tactic backfired on them. You earn the grade that you receive, the grade does not earn you. In my experience, I have met many people who believe that they should only receive straight A's because they are a straight A type of person. This is completely ridiculous because people only deserve the grade of an A if they work extremely hard for it. They are not given out like candy on Halloween to a special "trick or treater" and you cannot buy them by monetary means or other (stated above). Usually in most situations in the process of a grade appeal, the university or college is on the same side as the professor. They will defend them at any means possible, even if they are right or wrong. This is not a win-win situation but more of situation that cannot be won in most cases and should be abolished. I can understand about people that do receive grades based on biases and that is unfair. But shouldn't the university hire people who fit the universities criteria?
However you general question was that should we abolish the grading system. in this situation, I will say no. The reason why I would say no is because then the people who usually do nothing during class would recieve the same outcome as the person who worked their tail off in class. Also, what would be the criteria for admission into graduate schools and professional schools (law,medicine,pharmacy)? There frankly would be no type of criteria for admission because the grading system would be erased and with it being erased we would have nothing that would separate Person "A" from person "B".How could we deal with such a system and another more important question is how would this function in education at all levels? The grade you earn is the grade you should properly receive and there should be no debating over it. If anyone is disappointed with their previous grades then work harder the following semester.
In response to your question(s) I do believe that grading within colleges can be biased in some situations. For example, in some classes the one who sucks up to the professor gets a better grade over the student who works harder but does not participate during class. This is just one little example on how grading can be extremely unfair and biased in some situations. Truly what is a grade? Does a grade reflect what type of person you are or does it portray your overall competency in the subject. I would have to say in most grading systems, your overall competency in the subject is what will earn you an excellent grade. Professors truly like to see the student that will work hard in order to achieve an excellent grade and even sometimes getting to know the professor at a personal level wont hurt at all. However there is a term that we are well aware of and that is the "teachers pet". For those who do not know who the teachers pet is, usually it is a person that will do anything the professor wants, in laments terms this would be known as "sucking up". However who is to tell you that you are a D+ writer or a C- mathematician? Just because a professor earned a doctoral degree (PhD), which in many cases is a research degree does not mean they have full competence in the subject. They may have competence through what they have experienced and researched but they do not have competence in everything (which some believe they do). Ever since my collegiate career began, I have not had any professors that were unfair to me. Each and every one of them has stated what they expect out of their students and how their grading system functions on the first day of classes. You know what to expect out of all of them on day 1 and if you do not like their teaching style, drop the class, or look on a professor ratings website (www.ratemyprofessors.com) to see how other students liked or disliked this professor. However I have experienced students that would purposely suck up to a professor, doing anything to please them. They would agree with them on everything even if they were wrong, they would ask the most ridiculous questions, and even try to have lunch with them in their office to know them at an ultra personal level. This for an example should not constitute on who receives the better grade because being the professors best friend shouldn't equate as anything that would affect the students grade. What should affect the students grade is if he or she completes all of the assigned work, studies hard for the tests, attends the class when it is scheduled, and participates in class (If it is part of the grade). If all of these expectations are met, then the student should receive an excellent grade being a B+,A-,or an A.
While on the other hand I do understand when you gave the scenario when students were appealing their grades in an attempt to receive one better than the present. One though crosses my mind when I think about this. First and foremost, why is this student appealing the grade? Was it because this individual was treated unfairly due to their gender, age, or race? Or was it because that they felt like they deserved the grade even though they did not? In my opinion, you should not be able to appeal a grade because the professors authority should be respected, thus not being challenged. In most cases the individual is either a lazy student or their "sucking up" tactic backfired on them. You earn the grade that you receive, the grade does not earn you. In my experience, I have met many people who believe that they should only receive straight A's because they are a straight A type of person. This is completely ridiculous because people only deserve the grade of an A if they work extremely hard for it. They are not given out like candy on Halloween to a special "trick or treater" and you cannot buy them by monetary means or other (stated above). Usually in most situations in the process of a grade appeal, the university or college is on the same side as the professor. They will defend them at any means possible, even if they are right or wrong. This is not a win-win situation but more of situation that cannot be won in most cases and should be abolished. I can understand about people that do receive grades based on biases and that is unfair. But shouldn't the university hire people who fit the universities criteria?
However you general question was that should we abolish the grading system. in this situation, I will say no. The reason why I would say no is because then the people who usually do nothing during class would recieve the same outcome as the person who worked their tail off in class. Also, what would be the criteria for admission into graduate schools and professional schools (law,medicine,pharmacy)? There frankly would be no type of criteria for admission because the grading system would be erased and with it being erased we would have nothing that would separate Person "A" from person "B".How could we deal with such a system and another more important question is how would this function in education at all levels? The grade you earn is the grade you should properly receive and there should be no debating over it. If anyone is disappointed with their previous grades then work harder the following semester.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Truth (Of Experience and Of Correspondence)
During the previous class we had discussed the two theories of truth, through experience (constructivism) and correspondence. truth of Correspondence basically states that if the statement corresponds the way the world is, it is true, but if it does not then it is false. On the other hand, truth of experience states as long as the individual experiences something like a rock it is true and if it is not experienced then it is false. For example does a rock only exist if we experience it or does it exist based upon if it corresponds with the world, being present. Personally an item such as a rock does exist through both theories because the rock may not be in existence to a person who had not experienced what a rock even is. But on the other hand, there are millions of rocks that exist throughout the world in which do correspond the way the world really is. Sometimes these terms are confusing but I would like to analyze each in detail.
Such is in the case of experience or from a constructivist perspective objects and events have to be experienced to be true. An example would be that do mountains exist if we do not even perceive or experience them. German philosopher and psychologist Ernst Von Glaserfeld would probably state that you do need to experience a mountain to believe that it is true. Lets say that if a constructivist lived in an urban environment like Boston,Ma, mountains would not exist if one was to remain in the city their whole life. However skyscrapers, big businesses, forty floor apartments and condominiums would exist but not mountains. Theoretically mountains do exist in general and can be viewed pictorially or on a map but how can you convince a constructivist that a mountain actually exists. You could not state or proclaim that there is such thing as a mountain because they would deny of such thing would exist. A constructivist would have to experience a mountain via climbing, sightseeing, or being one with the mountain (meditation). This theory does make sense but to the normal person you could state that the constructivist has no common sense and a lack of geography. How could someone become dumbfounded to the point that they deny the existence of mountains, even though they are present. An example that was given in class about a couple weeks ago was that constructivists would deny that their hands exist and that hands are a figment of our imagination that only our brain tells us mentally. This is a ridiculous statement because our hands do exist anatomically and we do experience our hands on a daily basis. If our hands were to be separated from our body, then we would feel uttermost pain and suffering which would imply that our hands do exist.
Truth of correspondence states that if something corresponds with the way the world is it is true and vice versa, then it would be false. Now let us analyze the theory in relation to mountains again. Mountains do exist on a correspondence theory basis because mountains do exist with the way the world is. They are prevalent over the entire world ranging from the United States to China. There are pictures and even physical notations on maps and it does correspond the way the world is. If we said there were no such things as mountains, then the theory would be false. However do mountains correspond to the way the world is or do they not? If they did not, what are some examples?
Such is in the case of experience or from a constructivist perspective objects and events have to be experienced to be true. An example would be that do mountains exist if we do not even perceive or experience them. German philosopher and psychologist Ernst Von Glaserfeld would probably state that you do need to experience a mountain to believe that it is true. Lets say that if a constructivist lived in an urban environment like Boston,Ma, mountains would not exist if one was to remain in the city their whole life. However skyscrapers, big businesses, forty floor apartments and condominiums would exist but not mountains. Theoretically mountains do exist in general and can be viewed pictorially or on a map but how can you convince a constructivist that a mountain actually exists. You could not state or proclaim that there is such thing as a mountain because they would deny of such thing would exist. A constructivist would have to experience a mountain via climbing, sightseeing, or being one with the mountain (meditation). This theory does make sense but to the normal person you could state that the constructivist has no common sense and a lack of geography. How could someone become dumbfounded to the point that they deny the existence of mountains, even though they are present. An example that was given in class about a couple weeks ago was that constructivists would deny that their hands exist and that hands are a figment of our imagination that only our brain tells us mentally. This is a ridiculous statement because our hands do exist anatomically and we do experience our hands on a daily basis. If our hands were to be separated from our body, then we would feel uttermost pain and suffering which would imply that our hands do exist.
Truth of correspondence states that if something corresponds with the way the world is it is true and vice versa, then it would be false. Now let us analyze the theory in relation to mountains again. Mountains do exist on a correspondence theory basis because mountains do exist with the way the world is. They are prevalent over the entire world ranging from the United States to China. There are pictures and even physical notations on maps and it does correspond the way the world is. If we said there were no such things as mountains, then the theory would be false. However do mountains correspond to the way the world is or do they not? If they did not, what are some examples?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Hans or Russell
During the beginning of the book, three of the four characters start by discussing about Julies Govier in regards to the letter to Alison Bridges about his sub-average grade (C-) and further into other philosophical topics such as constructivism, metaphysics, and solipsism. However, the conversation turns into an argument or debate between Russell and Hans, with Alison being the intermediate or the conversational referee. Both characters (Russell and Hans) have a solid background in philosophy but seem to have different perspectives on many of the issues discussed. Again, it is tough to distinguish who is seemly more convincing but t\in the end, Hans seemed more convincing than Russell did.
The primary reason why I found Hans more convincing is that he seems to have this aura to him, similar to a sage, and his responses were refined in relativity to Russell. Russell jumps to far more conclusions then Hans, thinking that they are in complete accordance with the topics. For example in the beginning of chapter two, Russell seems to think that they in accordance over Jules Govier’s letter of disappointment. In return, Hans disagrees with Russell, stating that he is far too quick to judge, jumping to hastily conclusions. In addition, Russell does not have as much conclusive evidence as Hans has. There seems to be two roles to this argument is that Russell would be the “rough draft” to this argument while Hans would be the “editor/proofreader”. I am not saying that Russell is false in his interpretations, he has some good points to his arguments but they lack substance. Russell is sliding down a slippery slope (an argument fallacy) and he seems to believe that his assumptions are correct, on all aspects of the playing field. Sometimes Russell does remind me of Ernst Von Glaserfeld in which, he defends what he thinks is correct but is not.
Transitioning to chapter three, starting on page sixteen, the argument shifts from ontology to constructivism. Russell states that there is such thing as an unexperienced rock, existing out of thought. He gives the example of Alison stumbling on the rock along a trail in Vermont. It is true that she does not think it into existence, but that more likely that the rock was never noticed instead of experiencing a rock. Hans questions that how can you tub your toe on a rock you have never experienced; it does not make any sense. Again, this brings us to the theory that Von Glaserfeld brewed up that we can unexperience things, such as an apple. Russell is basically making minimal sense and I feel that if Hans has more expertise in the field of philosophy even though he is an education professor and Russell is supposed to be the philosopher.
1.Is Russell committing a numerous amount of argument fallacies and if so, which ones other than a “slippery slope”?
2.Does anyone else agree that Hans is more convincing than Russell or is it the other way around, Russell is more convincing than Hans?
The primary reason why I found Hans more convincing is that he seems to have this aura to him, similar to a sage, and his responses were refined in relativity to Russell. Russell jumps to far more conclusions then Hans, thinking that they are in complete accordance with the topics. For example in the beginning of chapter two, Russell seems to think that they in accordance over Jules Govier’s letter of disappointment. In return, Hans disagrees with Russell, stating that he is far too quick to judge, jumping to hastily conclusions. In addition, Russell does not have as much conclusive evidence as Hans has. There seems to be two roles to this argument is that Russell would be the “rough draft” to this argument while Hans would be the “editor/proofreader”. I am not saying that Russell is false in his interpretations, he has some good points to his arguments but they lack substance. Russell is sliding down a slippery slope (an argument fallacy) and he seems to believe that his assumptions are correct, on all aspects of the playing field. Sometimes Russell does remind me of Ernst Von Glaserfeld in which, he defends what he thinks is correct but is not.
Transitioning to chapter three, starting on page sixteen, the argument shifts from ontology to constructivism. Russell states that there is such thing as an unexperienced rock, existing out of thought. He gives the example of Alison stumbling on the rock along a trail in Vermont. It is true that she does not think it into existence, but that more likely that the rock was never noticed instead of experiencing a rock. Hans questions that how can you tub your toe on a rock you have never experienced; it does not make any sense. Again, this brings us to the theory that Von Glaserfeld brewed up that we can unexperience things, such as an apple. Russell is basically making minimal sense and I feel that if Hans has more expertise in the field of philosophy even though he is an education professor and Russell is supposed to be the philosopher.
1.Is Russell committing a numerous amount of argument fallacies and if so, which ones other than a “slippery slope”?
2.Does anyone else agree that Hans is more convincing than Russell or is it the other way around, Russell is more convincing than Hans?
Response: Jacob Wheeler (2/5)
Q; Words are Indicators of What?
In general throughout history, over thousands of generations words have been essential for communication among humans and animals in which we can express our own feelings or proving our points. Communication is essential with one another because if there was no such thing as communication via words, how would we communicate, excluding body language? It has been true that communication through body language is successful but can we communicate exactly what we want to at a given moment. For example if I was having a great or bad day, how would I express those given factors that made my day go by extremely well or bad. I could by telling anyone pictorially or writing on paper but could that type of communication function in everyday life? Generally speaking in the instance of people who are deaf, they speak through sign language which could be a form of body language, and has been extremely successful since sign language has been innovated. However what if we did not know what these words meant? This brings me to the question that you generally asked and what truly are words indicators of? In my opinion words are tools that we (humans,animals)use to communicate with each other. Each word has its own meaning and each meaning is mostly distinct but some words can be synonymous with each other. For example when an individual expresses an enjoyment for anything, each word has a different meaning e/g I love sports because of the competitive nature. Every word is the example sentence has a different meaning and with those different meanings a complete sentence is put together. But in general words have different meanings,each word indicates a specific meaning or definition, and we have used words as tools for everyday communication.
In general throughout history, over thousands of generations words have been essential for communication among humans and animals in which we can express our own feelings or proving our points. Communication is essential with one another because if there was no such thing as communication via words, how would we communicate, excluding body language? It has been true that communication through body language is successful but can we communicate exactly what we want to at a given moment. For example if I was having a great or bad day, how would I express those given factors that made my day go by extremely well or bad. I could by telling anyone pictorially or writing on paper but could that type of communication function in everyday life? Generally speaking in the instance of people who are deaf, they speak through sign language which could be a form of body language, and has been extremely successful since sign language has been innovated. However what if we did not know what these words meant? This brings me to the question that you generally asked and what truly are words indicators of? In my opinion words are tools that we (humans,animals)use to communicate with each other. Each word has its own meaning and each meaning is mostly distinct but some words can be synonymous with each other. For example when an individual expresses an enjoyment for anything, each word has a different meaning e/g I love sports because of the competitive nature. Every word is the example sentence has a different meaning and with those different meanings a complete sentence is put together. But in general words have different meanings,each word indicates a specific meaning or definition, and we have used words as tools for everyday communication.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Re:Ed Manak (4/19)
Q:Is there, in fact, a difference between experience and conceptualization?
Throughout the past week we have analyzed the works of Ernst Von Glaserfeld and what radical constructivism is. He presents a debatable question in which can we experience anything that is not conceptualized, such as an unconceptualized apple? In general I believe we can experience a conceptualized apple because we know the physical properties in which it is round, red, and derives from an apple tree. However on the other hand, can we experience and unconceptualized apple and if we can, what is an unconceptualized apple? When the term unconceptualized comes to my mind, I envision something that is foreign to me, something that I cannot even envision whatsoever. For example something that was unconceptualized to me about a year ago was the subject of philosophy because I did not know what the subject was or even what the main goals of philosophers are because I had never taken a course in this discipline. There was no concept even thought of and thus this subject was unconceptualized as of last year and before. However once I had taken a philosophy course, the concept of the subject was conceptualized and I understood what philosophy is, what the main concepts of the discipline are, and the message philosophers are trying to send. In regards to an unconceptualized apple, I would believe there is no such thing to many individuals because we know what an apple is and we can envision the concept of an apple. But there are a certain number of individuals that do not know what an apple is such as new born babies and toddlers. The reason why is because they are far to young to understand what an apple actually is but they may know what it is but pictorially and not what it actually is. Also Dr. Johnson states that there is no such thing as unconceptualized apples because there is no concept of an unconceptualized apple. The reason why is because it violates the principles of truism is because how can there be no concept of an apple that is not a concept. This whole topic just sounds like a double negative and is extremely confusing. Truly when Ernst Von Glaserfeld tries to prove his point with this subject it seems as he knows the he is wrong but still tries to defend his points, which he does a great job of.
Now to get back to your question Ed, I believe that experience and conceptualization are not synonymous because these are two completely different words but they do correlate with each other. In one case experience is a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something while conceptualization is when the mind mentally forms a concept (an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars). However wouldn't anyone have to experience something before it is even conceptualized. Such as in the case of apples, how would you be able to form a concept about an apple before if it is not experienced. For example if I was foreign to what apples were, how would you describe it to me, and if so would it be described through experience? Experience through description would probably be the easiest way for anyone to from a concept. Personally in my current anatomy course you can describe what a heart or an organ is but how will I know what a heart or an organ (specific) looks like? There must be pictures involved to even envision what a heart truly is and better yet, to experience what a heart actually is through laboratory dissection would form a complete concept in anyone's mind would be the ideal goal.
Throughout the past week we have analyzed the works of Ernst Von Glaserfeld and what radical constructivism is. He presents a debatable question in which can we experience anything that is not conceptualized, such as an unconceptualized apple? In general I believe we can experience a conceptualized apple because we know the physical properties in which it is round, red, and derives from an apple tree. However on the other hand, can we experience and unconceptualized apple and if we can, what is an unconceptualized apple? When the term unconceptualized comes to my mind, I envision something that is foreign to me, something that I cannot even envision whatsoever. For example something that was unconceptualized to me about a year ago was the subject of philosophy because I did not know what the subject was or even what the main goals of philosophers are because I had never taken a course in this discipline. There was no concept even thought of and thus this subject was unconceptualized as of last year and before. However once I had taken a philosophy course, the concept of the subject was conceptualized and I understood what philosophy is, what the main concepts of the discipline are, and the message philosophers are trying to send. In regards to an unconceptualized apple, I would believe there is no such thing to many individuals because we know what an apple is and we can envision the concept of an apple. But there are a certain number of individuals that do not know what an apple is such as new born babies and toddlers. The reason why is because they are far to young to understand what an apple actually is but they may know what it is but pictorially and not what it actually is. Also Dr. Johnson states that there is no such thing as unconceptualized apples because there is no concept of an unconceptualized apple. The reason why is because it violates the principles of truism is because how can there be no concept of an apple that is not a concept. This whole topic just sounds like a double negative and is extremely confusing. Truly when Ernst Von Glaserfeld tries to prove his point with this subject it seems as he knows the he is wrong but still tries to defend his points, which he does a great job of.
Now to get back to your question Ed, I believe that experience and conceptualization are not synonymous because these are two completely different words but they do correlate with each other. In one case experience is a particular instance of personally encountering or undergoing something while conceptualization is when the mind mentally forms a concept (an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars). However wouldn't anyone have to experience something before it is even conceptualized. Such as in the case of apples, how would you be able to form a concept about an apple before if it is not experienced. For example if I was foreign to what apples were, how would you describe it to me, and if so would it be described through experience? Experience through description would probably be the easiest way for anyone to from a concept. Personally in my current anatomy course you can describe what a heart or an organ is but how will I know what a heart or an organ (specific) looks like? There must be pictures involved to even envision what a heart truly is and better yet, to experience what a heart actually is through laboratory dissection would form a complete concept in anyone's mind would be the ideal goal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)