Realism upholds one's reality is only a fragment of time and through each observation we can come closer to the understanding of a "true" reality. It transcends time, space, and holds each perspective a whole different object to contend with (if my understanding is correct!) Has anyone ever heard the phrase "live in the moment?" This, in my opinion, could possibly label a person realist, causing them to pause and think of their own reality. I think it is possible; theoretically, we all experience our own reality, our own take on what happened during the day or their experience in a given situation.
I would like to compare it to someone grasping a magazine in between two people; each person sees a different side, and yet they are still observing the same magazine. Each person can describe a completely different view, yet still experiencing the same object. However, I am unsure if one could then say the magazine is the same object. Is it merely different perspectives on the same issue, or a different issue for each person entirely because it was viewed from a different angle. This leads to Perspectivalism, is this the way the world is? slightly off topic perhaps, but leading to understanding, for me, all the same.
Glasersfeld's examples of constructivism are summarized by an organism's experiences on daily terms which forms relationships on previous encounters and are structured, then formed into knowledge, creating the reality in which the organism lives. This is used to guide the organism when faced with a similar task the creature may refer to its categorized moments and outcomes.
Realism is unrealistic because the basic fundamental argument of it is impossible to completely define based on the notion of human understanding...it is a bottomless task, therefore illogical. The theory of realism itself is not found in nature, but instead constructed by humans, therefore nullifies itself. I think it is completely possible we, the human race, have constructed the world around us purposefully for comfort, efficiency, and aesthetically. We want to learn, and actively build knowledge to refer to in the future, for our fundamental purpose of survival.
I wonder how the Realist and Radical Constructivist's views of mental illness differ; as in how they view the patient's reality and experience.
.JPG)
3 comments:
I think our perceptions suggest that the universe exists. You mentioned that the world may very well be conjured up to suit our comforts. How? Any casual observer of the universe can note its extreme impersonality in regards to life, not to mention human life. Similarly, if this universe is our construction, then we are the manufacturers of destruction, calamity, and ultimately, our own deaths. Why would we construct a reality in which we perish?
If we have constructed this world in order to intellectually advance ourselves, does this not necessitate us knowing, before constructing the world, the very things we wish to learn? It's like trying to teach yourself a lesson and then forgetting that you already know what is being taught. Without resorting to a higher entity (and perhaps that is the missing part of this argument), there seems to be no reasonable explanation for why we have constructed the universe as it exists.
Instead, life seems to flourish (perhaps that is too generous--seems to manage) in spite of the universe. This seems the work of a reality that has no concern for our well-being or advancement whatsoever. One might have skepticism about every conceivable thing within the universe, due to our subjective approach to it, but the fact that all of us seem to be living in the same one is rather strong evidence that it exists irrespective of us, though it (like its contradictory premises as well) is very hard to conclusively prove (as the arguments against have been rather well insulated against human reason).
I agree with your point on perspectives, so long as it can be noted that your example suggests the magazine does indeed exist. I am confused as to why you say realism's basic fundamental argument is unfounded; perhaps you could clarify? As well, I don't understand how the theory of realism can nullify itself--like all human theories, it attempts to describe something: in this instances, objective reality. Nature has and needs no theories, so in this instance it is the subject, rather than the purporter, of said theory. Perhaps I am missing a premise, but it does not logically follow that a human thought must necessarily be incapable of describing an objective thing. I feel as if I'm not getting your argument right though.
Btw, I love Tool, that's a fantastic song you're quoting.
Nelson Goodman once wrote of the many versions or perspectives on the world, that they exhaust the categories of being: Like the layers of an onion, they are not centered on any one thing; rather, they peal down to an empty core. (I happen to think he was wrong about this, but enjoy the metaphor.)
Post a Comment