| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> How do you understand this philosophical statement?Question: How do you understand this philosophical statement!? Robert Klee stated that Social Constructivism is an "increasingly popular philosophical position in which the objects of our knowledge are held to be either wholly or partly interpreted by our coming to now them in the way they do!."Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I believe the short-answer is our knowlege is biased towards how we come to know(epistemology) that info in part or whole!. Example: If I'm a judge at the present Beijing-Olympics of the 400-meter medly swimming relay, and choose to only remain at the starting line to make a judgement of who finishes first, when in actuality they finish on the opposite side of the pool!.!.!. the finishers that finish within only thousandths of seconds from one another I'm more likely to err in judgement then I am to make a correct one!. A) However, what if I got a bird's eye view(view from above) or a view at the lne where everyone finished!.!.!. these views taken together let alone or going to give me better information then remaing at the starting line of this swimming race!. 1) The author above, rightly chooses the word "Popular", and hopefully all of us know by now that 'Popularity' doesn't necessarily dictate truth any more then snapping your fingers does!. 2) Too often Societies are run on mere philosophies with original good-intentions, such as "Social Constructivism", but never use the hindsight of what could of been done better sooner!. Too often we think way too highly of our predecessors in Philosophical-Thought!.!.!. they may have contributed much to a certain Philosophical-Discipline!.!.!. but that doesn't mean they couldn't of done better with the feedback of 6-decades of attempted application that would come years after their generation and lifetimes!.!.!. 3) Klee, taking my best educated guess without seeing the quote in context, was merely hinting at the fact that our perspective, point-of-view, or camera-angle!.!.!. has just as much to say about the perceived information we come to know, as much or greater then the information itself!. Www@QuestionHome@Com I don't know anything about social constructivism, so this is just what that little fragment you said seems to mean to me!. Does it mean that the idea is that we judge the reliability of our knowledge based on where or from whom we learned it rather than by using reason and logic to justify our knowledge!? Or is that way off!?Www@QuestionHome@Com coming to now them in the way they do I am prepared to answer any question on social contructivism!. However, this fragment, "coming to now them in the way they do" is not something that one can answer!. If one answers it, they are as drunk as as the person who asked it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Em, somthing seems to be missing from Klees' statement, when you quote him as saying, "interpreted by our coming to know them in the way they do!." The way they do what!? Unless we know what they do, we can't answer that!. At least I cannot!. If we come to know them in they way "something," that would make sense!. My own website offers some sanity in an insane world!. Thank you for looking at it!. http://freeassemblage!.blogspot!.com/Www@QuestionHome@Com The last but one word ( they) does not seem to fit the statement!. What does the word 'they' refer to!? The objects or we or the knowledge!? To me it looks like a very simple standard statement , made by a complex man called Robert Klee!. Www@QuestionHome@Com http://infoinall!.strangled!.net you can get much information in this website,stay a minute in website and check anyone link at a time,you can aslo get your answer in Google Search in this website, which has helped me alot Www@QuestionHome@Com with a little tweaking (take out "partly interpreted" and add "only knowable" and you have Aristotle precisely!. trmscaw05 has it wrong!. Www@QuestionHome@Com i interpret that as just looking at things with a different perspective and attitude,for a different solution!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Philosophers are a lot like politicians: They know how to speak a lot of words without really saying anything!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I understand that you made a typo :DWww@QuestionHome@Com |