ok, can someone explain to me the difference between metaphysical realism and epistomology? There is a quote from the von Glasersfeld paper we read that got me confused.
"In everyday English, that conceptual opposition can be brought out quite clearly by pitting the words "match" and "fit" against one another in certain contexts. The metaphysical realist looks for knowledge that matches reality in the same sense as you might look for paint to match the color that is already on the wall that you have to repair. In the epistemologist's case it is, of course, not color that concerns him, but he is, nevertheless, concerned with some kind of "homomorphism", which is to say, an equivalence of relations, sequence, or characteristic structure -- something, in other words, that he can consider the same, because only then could he say that his knowledge is of the world."
It sounds like both things look for some relation, but there is a difference in what they look for that i don't understand.
I think of all the "isms" we have learned about, skepticism seems to be the most wide-spread, basically because everyone is a skeptic whether they realize it or not. Everyone questions everything. But does that mean that they really believe in skepticism? If they do not realize they are being a skeptic, then are they really a skeptic?
2 comments:
Amanda, I will try my best to explain.
To "match" is to find a color which corresponds exactly to what the base color is. In this sense, Glasersfeld is saying that MR looks to find knowledge which matches the base (reality). His problem with it is that it must be an exact "match", meaning individual knowledge must correspond exactly to the base (reality)
"fit" does not necessarily mean an absolute correspondence, but simply that it goes along with the base. An interior designer will not paint a wall all one color, but with use DIFFERENT colors witch "fit" together. Although not all exactly the same, it is all paint which paints the wall.
As for skepticism...Questioning is in our human nature, it is how we are designed. It is why we are the dominant species we are. In regards to philosophy, it is the sole reason for its existence; "why?"
-Nicholas
Von Glasersfeld strongly prefers the claims of "epistemology" (the study of knowledge) and its internal relations over any kind of "metaphysics" (the study of existence or being), since the first more obviously involves linguistic or cognitive "construction" than does the latter.
Post a Comment