>Both Piaget and von Glasersfeld, the two figures most often cited as the
>sources of constructivism, link their work to Kant, whose philosophy was
>notorously dualistic. Kant assumed an ontology of two realms, of the
>subject and an independent world.
You replied:
>I don't think that one can say that von Glasersfeld really includes an
>ontology of an independent world, at all.
Then in your last message you clarified:
>That an
>independent world exists, I think, is not actually a point of contention
>here. What we *think we can know* about the nature, the make-up, the
>entities and their nature which make it up _is_ where we differ, I think.
and also
>Do I think it makes sense to believe in an independent world? Yes. Should
>I commit to *specific* entities "populating" that world and their nature?
>My answer is no, because even in my own life I've experienced examples of
>abandoning things I once thought were the case about the existence of
>entities in the world and their nature.
You went on to explain that you disagreed with my original statement because,
>for me (and I think Ernst, too), ontology entails entities
>posited or presupposed by some theory which is either implicit or explicit.
>This is far more for me than believing in an independent world.
While for me the position that there is an independent reality, albeit
unknowable,
is itself an ontological assumption. And the position that we both (now)
agree von Glasersfeld
adopts, whether or not we choose call it ontological, is basically
identical with the position Kant adopted.
Thanks for working with me to clarify all this.
Martin
================
Martin Packer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh PA 15282
(412) 396-4852
fax: (412) 396-5197
packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer/packer.html