The ineffectiveness of Radical Constructivism

Have you ever been in an argument with your mother about the way life works and she obviously (hopefully) knows more about it than you do, and she eventually says that single thing that you don't really know anything about, and you are struggling to argue with the fact because you simply cannot refute it based on the fact that you don't know enough. Are a discussion with a doctor in which you say "I've heard this about that medication..." and the response is something along the lines of "Yes,but you need to have this condition and it only happens to a few people." You can't argue with this information because you don't know enough to disprove what has been said;to argue with what has been said. A similar phenomenon comes into play when discussing the theory of Radical Constructivism. Not the details of the discussion,but the outcome of the opponent; he/she is left feeling helpless because the theory is, admittedly by R.C.'s irrefutable. The idea that a Radical Constructivist does not care whether or not he/she is right and is only concerned with whether or not ideas fit with particular individuals makes the theory itself lack 'substance of argument.' (This term is developed by my family and myself). Substance of argument in itself refers to an arguments ability to be seen in more than one scenario and is disproved, or able to be disproved. There is no proof in R.C. just words. No statements are made other than that truth is relative. Radical Constructivism does not get the thinker anywhere in reality. I disagree with R.C. not as a whole, but the problem is R.C.'s don't even care.

Is there an effective argument to a person who does not care about right or wrong?

Absolute truth and the relativeness of it

You can't logically argue against the existence of absolute truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument. Consider a few of the classic arguments and declarations made by those who seek to argue against the existence of absolute truth…

"There are no absolutes." First of all, the relativist is declaring there are absolutely no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, an absolute - there are absolutely no absolutes.

"Truth is relative." Again, this is an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. Besides positing an absolute, suppose the statement was true and "truth is relative." Everything including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. When you follow the logic, relativist arguments will always contradict themselves.

"Who knows what the truth is, right?" In the same sentence the speaker declares that no one knows what the truth is, then he turns around and asks those who are listening to affirm the truth of his statement.

"No one knows what the truth is." The speaker obviously believes his statement is true.

It is safe to assume that there are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those philosophy teachers who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of truth or values. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth." Then they turn around and grade the papers!

Joel's Truth Equation

In class today(4/26) we discussed the equations to find truth for the view of realism and constructivism. The realists truth was based on how claims corresponded with how the world actually is. While the constructivists truth was based on how claims fit with their own personal experience. I am definitely and admittedly more inclined to subscribe to the realists point of view, but not yet ready to completely disregard the constructivists truth equation. While I believe a balance between the two would be the optimal solution, along with a few other characteristics, I have developed a, perhaps rough, truth equation of my own.

T= C -->Q --> R --> C --> Correspondence --> World

The T represents the truth or supposed truth (i.e. the world is round) The first C represents a claim about this truth. Then my though process is to question this claim hence the next arrow is represented with a Q. After questioning the previous claim and perhaps discovering something new or different or false about it the claim is reformed into a more accurate legitimate claim, thus the stages R (reformation) and the second C (claim). After this slightly different process I would then assess how the claim corresponds to how the world is in order to justify its truth value.

After pondering for a while about how I think, I asked myself if there is anything this cannot be applied to, in other words is there anything I don't think about, or is there any point that one does not think?

Difference between Conceptualizing and Experiencing

The difference between the two terms seems to be baffling at first, but upon further research and examination of the lexical definitions and various articles in which the terms are used I believe I have a decent differentiating characteristic.

To experience something is to accumulate knowledge or skills by directly participating in events or activities. When you experience a concert or a piece of artwork you have developed skills in order to perhaps discuss the nature of the artist. When you experience an apple you understand the dimensions of the apple you are viewing or have previously viewed you understand the colors, the tastes, etc. When you conceptualize something you invent it. To conceptualize an artwork means to create it. The viewer of artwork is the "experiencer" and the creator of the artwork is the conceptualizer. When you conceptualize an apple you create its colors, tastes and dimensions. So the difference is found in the position of the person discussing whether or not he/she experiences or conceptualizes. The question is whether you view or create.

My question is can you conceptualize an experience, or can experiences only be experiences to an individual?

Argument against Nihilism

Depends on what sort of Nihilist you are!

If you say "life has no inherent meaning or purpose", I would say "sure, but so what?". It doesn't change the basic dynamics of what makes life *work*, which is the true basis of morality.

If you say "life has no inherent meaning, and therefore there's no basis for morality", I would say you're wrong: that's making the meaninglessness of life MEAN something, yes? That's screwed up: life doesn't mean anything, and it doesn't MEAN anything that it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you get to shoot your neighbor or steal his Rolex. That's giving meaning to the meaninglessness.

If you say "life has no meaning, and therefore I'm depressed", I'd say "you've missed the personal responsibility aspect of this theory". Life has no *inherent* meaning, that doesn't mean there's no meaning to MY life. It means that without the subject, in a purely objective perspective, there's no meaning. But put subjects in, and then you have got something.

Life is rich and abundant with meaning: Anybody who is depressed or justifying selfishness and crime because of life's lack of inherent meaning isn't doing philosophy, they're just malfunctioning.

What legitimate arguments are there for Nihilism? How do they (nihilists) make sense of other philosophical theories if at all?

Solipsism and its problems.

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside one's own specific mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

Problem One: Explaining Solipsism to someone
However a problem is faced in Solipsism when you try to explain this belief to someone else. You see, it is nearly impossible to convince anyone that this could be true. There are only two ways to convince someone that Solipsism is true:

You have to convince them that *they* are valid, and that you yourself are a projection of their own self. However they'll know you can't possibly believe this yourself.

So, you have to convince them that they are a projection of your imagination. Which they simply will never believe, because they are conscious themselves.
It appears, using this simplistic approach to Solipsism, to be impossible to state that you yourself are the only valid consciousness in a meaningful way, because anyone who you tell it to will automatically disbelieve you. That is a major problem, it makes Solipsism workable only as a completely private belief. It doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true, if you do honestly believe that all the people around you are automatons of your own creation, and do not possess independent consciousness.

Problem Two: There can only be one!
It seems only one person in the world can be a solipsist and be correct in their belief. If two Solipsists ever meet, one of them are wrong in their belief. This problem begins to appear as a symptom of a great problem of solipsism: It might not actually be true.

Can somebody refute my problems?

How do you truly know someone response

In response to Becky's doubting of a characteristic (s) due to a lack of experience: I feel that the view of not truly knowing someone due to the simple fact of not meeting them is legitimate, but a step further than that bring the information giver into question. What details of said "non-existent" person are being presented to you and how well do you know the person giving them to you? I think knowing people and their particular characteristics and habits and emotions is a step by step process that takes years and cannot be understood through he said she said. By understanding the one talking about another person you should already comprehend that due to an inclination to gossip about others, that particular information may not be so reliable. So in order to actually know what this mystery person is or does you must physically spend extensive amounts of time with he/she otherwise an acceptable evaluation of who a person actually is would not be so.

My question is what techniques can people employ to truly understand people one on one? For example if I am meeting a new friend or person, what can I do to ensure this person is being honest?

Could psychological time beat physical time?

Response to Sarah's last post.

In the basic sense, psychological time is not a tangible source of measuring schedules by checking the time on the clock. In it is that sort of time that deals with the degree of significance a certain person assigns to his/her past, present and future- which mainly are the three important dimensions of psychological time. For every person, psychological time differs as each person has a specific and distinct mode of priority with regards to assigning importance to different dimensions (phases) of his/her life.

For instance if a person has a past orientation, that person relives old days of their life, considers the old methods and approaches of life far superior to contemporary practices. Not only that but the person also sees events as recurring and circular. In other words, according to a past-oriented person, the theories and practices of the past are verily applicable in the courses of both present and future.

As for persons who have a present orientation, they live for the present and don't care either about the past or about the future. According to their standpoints, the present is the ultimate determinant that will comprehend the course of their lives. Past and future holds no importance for present-oriented people.

The last dimension, that is the future-oriented dimension, involves those people, who live for the future that is, they sacrifice their present luxuries and pleasure in order to secure a comfortably lasting future.

Given these dimensions of psychological time, one may assume that human, that is, normal human psychology, perception and corroboration are necessary in order to judge and make use of them. In a sensory deprivation chamber these three dimensions are blurred and eventually meaningless because without chronos or clock time human's seem to be unable to distinguish realities, let alone psychological time dimensions. So in relation to that, what would a reality look like without the institution of time?

What is time...to you?

We all know what time is. It's the ticking of a clock, the whine of an alarm, the calendar on the wall. And since we all agree about how those things work, time can seem as solid as a rock.

In fact, it's a lot more squishy. Our calendars are imperfect. We need a leap day to keep them in line with the seasons, and even so, time will eventually get away from us. "If you feel there aren't enough hours in a day, just wait," says Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "In a few hundred million years, tidal friction will have slowed Earth's rotation to make the day 25 hours long."

If that doesn't make your head spin, consider that in physics, motion alters time; in psychology, different stimuli alter our perception of time; and in philosophy, there's disagreement on whether time is even real.

I attempted to find a few scholars that comment on what time is and compiled three or four of them through the following short quotes:
"From a gerontologist's standpoint, biological time is not wear-and-tear, it's a genetic program," says Michael West. "It's sort of like a time bomb. The cells are programmed to last just long enough for us to rear children, and no longer."

Thank goodness for spiritual counselors--and drugs. The Rev. Jacqueline Lewis, senior minister at Middle Collegiate Church in New York, says that while we may be most familiar with chronos, or clock time, we should also be aware of kairos, or God's time. "It's what the theologian [and Narnia author] C.S. Lewis called 'God's unbounded now,' where now is both this moment--right now--and what stretches into eternity." If you get frustrated waiting for your prayers to be answered, remember that "when God comes, it's always the right time."

Spiritual guide and alternative medicine expert Deepak Chopra, warns of the dangers of a hectic lifestyle.

"People who feel that they are 'running out of time' have speeded up their biological clocks," says Chopra. "They have faster heart rates and jittery platelets with high levels of adrenaline. When they drop dead from a premature heart attack, they have literally 'run out of time.'"

With so many definitions of time and so many aspects and characteristics of time, it is difficult to nail down a definition that is both universal and accurate. So my question is, beyond lengthy conditional definitions and philosophically accurate descriptions of time, what does time mean to you?

Wiping the world clean : Does time exist without humans?

There is no question that we experience what we call time. There is a precision with which we can measure the progression of events over time that is phenomenally accurate. Things age and particles decay over “time” and it is consistent. However, physical laws that use time as a reference work equally well for time reversal - going backward – a particle hitting another particle, generating other particles and emitting photons will work just as well running backward according to physics. We just have never experienced time reversal and this disconnect with the laws of physics seems to be a mystery. This disconnect is used by many to express the opinion that time exists. However the fact remains that equations of space and time break down at certain points and time falls out of some of them as an unnecessary factor.
Beyond the question of whether or not time exists without the mind is does time exist at all? Or is that the same question? Is existence of anything comprehensible and extractable without the recognition and corroboration of the human understanding/ conceptual mind?
With the understanding that the past no longer exists and the future is only potential and these two nothings are separated by an ongoing ever growing present that moves so quickly that humans cannot make sense of it, then this alone allows one to logically conclude that time does not exist. Past equals nothing; future equals nothing; present equals nothing. Time is sections of nothing all separated by nothingness.
With the question of whether or not time is real or arbitrary still unsure to me I ask whether time flows or rather do we flow through it?