What is Constructivism? Common Denominators

[Flannel Jesus]

I expected that to be the case.

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

[Skepdick]

I expected that to be the case.

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

What exactly is "Constructivism itself"?
What exactly is "Logic itself"?
What exactly is "Mathematics itself"?
What exactly is "Philosophy itself"?

You can't assert the correctness of a theory in the internal language of the theory, but you can assert the correctness of a theory in a language external to the theory.

And therein lies the crux of correctness being decidable and therefore morality being objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Constructivism necessarily results in relativism. The problem with VA is that he wants a constructivist single source of truth which is a self-defeating enterprise.

All you need to do is create your own moral FSK out of different ingredients to the one VA uses and you have an equally valid FSK to his.

Side note: has he ever admitted tobeing a constructivist before? I thought he always claims "strawman" when that word crops up.

Someone should lock him in a room with Peter -crackpot- Kropotkin for a day. It would teach both of them a lesson.

VA v Kropotkin?

I'm not feeling it. Who's the referee?

[Skepdick]

I'm not feeling it. Who's the referee?

Winner gets to choose the referee.

[Atla]

3. Representationalism is rejected
Questioning the correspondence theory of representation (cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “in order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality”) induced Ernst von Glasersfeld to formulate the radical constructivist position. It is the claim that knowledge is the result of an active construction process rather than of a more or less passive representational mapping from the environment of an objective world onto subjective cognitive structures. Therefore, knowledge is a system-related cognitive process (Peschl & Riegler 1999).

4. It is futile to claim that knowledge approaches observer-independent reality; instead, reality is brought forth by the subject
The second aspect of von Glasersfeld’s position is, “the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experiential world, not the discovery of ontological reality” (Glasersfeld 1995: 18), which means that, “those who merely speak of the construction of knowledge, but do not explicitly give up the notion that our conceptual constructions can or should in some way represent an independent, ‘objective’ reality, are still caught up in the traditional theory of knowledge” (Glasersfeld 1991: 16)

Representationalism was pretty much proven to be the case, that's a decided issue. Philosophy 101. The only task left is to find the most correct variant of representationalism.

And the opposite of "knowledge approaches observer-independent reality" is "knowledge approaches reality, of which the observer is also part of", not "reality is brought forth by the subject".

Wtf, did this Glasersfeld guy come up with such sophistry? I can't help but feel a certain sense of admiration

[Skepdick]

Representationalism was pretty much proven to be the case, that's a decided issue. Philosophy 101. The only task left is to find the most correct variant of representationalism.

The most correct for what purpose?

Some representations are better suited for some tasks than others.

For example we could represent all of reality using the word "reality". This representation is correct because it corresponds by definition.

OK. And then what?

[FlashDangerpants]

I expected that to be the case.

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

It's hard to say, perhaps if VA put into his own words which brand of constructivism he intends (usually scientific and metaethical c-word aren't all that similar - because there is obviously a big f***-off difference in the type of objectivity claims to be made) it would help. Sadly he has plagiarised somebody's blog for the OP here, which looks like a fairly radical manifesto for scientific constructivism of the least subtle variety, and as presented it simply puts itself into solipsism jail.

[Impenitent]

constructivists without legos are missing something...

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

That's right.

I stated the 'fundamentals' of my views are in alignment with that ['common fundamentals'] of 'Constructivism' as listed in the OP.
I am merely asserting they are familiar, but that does not mean I am a constructivist per se because there are many different types of constructivism and each has their own human-based specific FSK.

The point is whatever the conclusions I have arrived at re Morality is objective, I will support it with valid and sound argument, for which I have been doing.

As for point #5,
Note the point;
"Observer-independent reality is considered beyond our cognitive horizon. Any reference to it should be refrained from.
We neither assert nor deny these theses, we reject the whole question.”

This is specific to the mind-independent "ism" i.e. 'philosophical realism' which as an ideology as a non-starter at the ultimate sense.

As I had stated I do not reject the mind-independent concept [not ism nor ideological] in the common and conventional senses.

The essence of constructivism [which I agree] is that we cannot assume reality is absolutely independent of the human conditions, rather somehow humans contribute [participate] to the emergence of reality they are part and parcel of.

Because humans are contributors to the the emergence of reality they are part and parcel of, there is opportunity for humans to be a better contributors to facilitate greater progress within reality.

[Iwannaplato]

I expected that to be the case.

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

If that's what he meant, it's a poor argument. Though I think it's a fair description of what he's doing.

[Flannel Jesus]

I expected that to be the case.

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

If that's what he meant, it's a poor argument. Though I think it's a fair description of what he's doing.

"Interpreting constructivism through the lens of someone who already believes in objective morality supports the conclusion of objective morality". It's not a very strong statement when you add in all the qualifiers.

[Skepdick]

I expected that to be the case.

So when he says "'Constructivism'... also support my views on why Morality is Objective.", he's not saying constructivism itself necessarily produces the conclusion he's making, he's more saying "the way I choose to interpret constructivist thought, through the lens of my existing philosophies, supports my view on why morality is objective". Right?

If that's what he meant, it's a poor argument. Though I think it's a fair description of what he's doing.

"Interpreting constructivism through the lens of someone who already believes in objective morality supports the conclusion of objective morality". It's not a very strong statement when you add in all the qualifiers.

What? Like “very” and “strong” to qualify statements?

This is a statement.
This is a strong statement.
This is a very strong statement.

Qualifiers are always about connotation not denotation.

[Iwannaplato]

"Interpreting constructivism through the lens of someone who already believes in objective morality supports the conclusion of objective morality". It's not a very strong statement when you add in all the qualifiers.

I'm not sure if you are saying he is making that statement. In any case, it's more or less a paraphrase of confirmation bias. But also, contructivism is what some people believe. Since what he presents is just assertions or really a description of a set of beliefs, it doesn't support anything except potentially other people's positions on what constructivists' believe. LIke if someone thought constructivists believed X, Y and Z and found these on the list, it supports, if anything that person's ideas about what contructivism is.

If I think the earth isn't an oblate spheroid, my describing the beliefs of flat earthers doesn't support my position, it's just information about what some people believe.

And likewise with any other belief, whether it seems likely or not, reasonable or not.

and PH can post a riposte describing what some faction of realists believe and he hasn't supported his position either.

Then they can play ping pong. VA posts a description of the beliefs of someone who agrees with him
then PH posts a description of the beliefs of someone who agrees with him
and so on back and forth.

I think they both acknowledge that there are supporters for both realisms and antirealisms.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'd be interested to know if constructivists believe in objective morality at a higher rate than non constructivists. Or if becoming a constructivist is more likely to coincide with a change from not accepting objective morality to accepting morality, than a change in the opposite direction.

Otherwise, the claim that constructivism supports objective morality seems pretty empty. The only supporting data point in that direction would be, we have one person who already believes in objective morality choosing to interpret constructivism in a way that goes with the grain of his existing beliefs. Confirmation bias, as you say.

Because there's nothing analytically that tells me constructivism and objective morality go together particularly well. Analytically they seem like largely separate topics.

[Iwannaplato]

I'd be interested to know if constructivists believe in objective morality at a higher rate than non constructivists. Or if becoming a constructivist is more likely to coincide with a change from not accepting objective morality to accepting morality, than a change in the opposite direction.

There seemed to be a mix. I'd come in contact with constructivism in pedagogy and then also in the philosophy of science, not so much in relation to morals. I was surprised to find that a significant number of contructivists believe in objective morality, though if you read why, it sounds like they mean what I would call subjective. But regardless there's a mix of positions, yet I don't know any percentages.

Otherwise, the claim that constructivism supports objective morality seems pretty empty.

It'd have to be at best 'Constructivists tend to believe in.....'

Because there's nothing analytically that tells me constructivism and objective morality go together particularly well. Analytically they seem like largely separate topics.

It's less random than that. But I find it a very hard read trying to get any coherent position out of contructivism and morals.

The problem with the thread is that the bulk of it is more or less an encyclopedia entry on what contructivism is. But VA tosses in the idea that this description supports his position. It doesn't. Some contructivists agree that morals are real, though generally NOT in his sense of morality.

He's throwing things at us and PH without digesting it and working it into a position or connecting it to his arguments or thoughts.