Is there any use to being a Radical Constructivist? Where can we get working off this theory?
Like a skeptic, the radical constructivist backs themselves into a corner when it comes to knowing anything about the world. If you can't verify an outside reality, then how can we rationally discuss anything?
On this basis alone it seems that RD should be rejected, the same way that skepticism in the end must be rejected. Though the possibility of RD's truth must constantly lurk in the background like the boogeyman, there is no way to approach the veracity of RD's claims, and thus nothing interesting or useful that we can do with it.
RD also fails to tell us why we should be so skeptical about realism. Realism seems intuitively true, and while the nature of realist metaphysics makes it impossible for us to verify from inside and outside our minds weather or not we are actually accessing reality through our senses, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to seriously doubt it.
Like a skeptic, the radical constructivist backs themselves into a corner when it comes to knowing anything about the world. If you can't verify an outside reality, then how can we rationally discuss anything?
On this basis alone it seems that RD should be rejected, the same way that skepticism in the end must be rejected. Though the possibility of RD's truth must constantly lurk in the background like the boogeyman, there is no way to approach the veracity of RD's claims, and thus nothing interesting or useful that we can do with it.
RD also fails to tell us why we should be so skeptical about realism. Realism seems intuitively true, and while the nature of realist metaphysics makes it impossible for us to verify from inside and outside our minds weather or not we are actually accessing reality through our senses, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to seriously doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment