How To Engage With Experimental Practices? Moderate Versus Radical Constructivism

A central question in constructivist studies of science is how the analyst should deal with the material objects handled by scientific practitioners in laboratories. Representatives of ‘radical constructivism’ such as Knorr-Cetina and Latour have gone furthest in exploring the role of these ‘non-humans’ but have also maneuvered themselves in untenable positions due to a fatal conflation of different meanings of the term ‘construction’. The epistemological and ontological commitments of ‘moderate constructivism’ especially of the Strong Program defended by Barnes and Bloor, are more suitable for dealing with the task at hand. While radical constructivists treat the domains of nature and human society as largely coterminous, an alternative ontology stresses that natural reality is never fully absorbed into the world of culture but only interacts with the latter at localizable interfaces such as practices and artifacts. This perspective promises a more relaxed relationship with current forms of scientific realism. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Can Rawls’ Constructivism Avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma? In Reply to Shafer-Landau

In this essay, I consider two challenges implicit in Russ Shafer-Landau’s criticism of constructivists: the realism challenge and the relativism challenge, respectively. I do not try to offer a decisive set of objections to the challenges; instead I argue that some objective versions of constructivism, especially Rawls’s constructivism, are not susceptible to the criticisms.     

On Generalization： Pragmatists＇ Contributions to Constructivism

Constructivism has been an important program in contemporary philosophy, but cannot itself cannot provide sufficient context for grasping its key points. To fully understand its power and potential we must borrow tools from other programs： specifically, Charles Peirce and John Dewey＇s pragmatism. By exploring these two pragmatists＇ articulations of ＂generalization,＂ which I hold is the most crucial question in constructivism, their prospective contributions to constructivism can be brought to light. If, as I argue, constructivism can incorporate the lessons of pragmatism, then it can still be considered a highly workable interpretation of reality and of human endeavors.     

Comments on Nietzsche’s Constructivism by Justin Remhof

Philosophia - Justin Remhof defends a constructivist interpretation of Nietzsche’s view regarding the metaphysics of material objects. First, I describe an attractive feature of...     

Indeterminate Interests: Comments on Justin Remhof’s Nietzsche’s Constructivism

Philosophia - In his book Nietzsche’s Constructivism: A Metaphysics of Material Objects Justin Remhof defends, using resources from Nietzsche’s thought, the constructivist view that all...     

Symposium on Justin Remhof’s Nietzsche’s Constructivism: a Metaphysics of Material Objects (Routledge, 2018)

Philosophia - Like Kant, the German Idealists, and many neo-Kantian philosophers before him, Nietzsche was persistently concerned with metaphysical questions about the nature of objects. His texts...     

Confucian Ethics: Altruistic? Egoistic? Both? Neither?

Is Confucian ethics primarily egoistic or altruistic? There is textual support for both answers. For the former, for example, Confucius claims that one learns for the sake of oneself; for the latter, we can find Confucius saying that one ought to not impose upon others as one would not like to be imposed upon. This essay aims to explain in what sense Confucian ethics is egoistic (the highest goal one aims to reach is to become a virtuous person oneself) and in what sense it is altruistic (a virtuous person is necessarily concerned with the well-being, both external and internal, of others). The conclusion to be drawn, however, is not that Confucian ethics is both egoistic and altruistic, but that it is neither, since the Confucian ideal of a virtuous person is to be in one body with others so that there are really no others (since all others become part of myself), and since there are no others, there is no self either.     

俗事?圣事?

吃,是人维生的手段,随着“新物种”吃货的诞生,“吃”成了吃货们重要的生活内容,事情在吃喝中解决,感情在吃喝中联络,无聊在吃喝中打发.人为吃喝而存在,生命在吃喝中消耗……那么,圣经中关于吃喝有什么教导呢? 一、随意吃和不可吃 神曾对亚当说:“园中各样树上的果子,你可以随意吃,只是分别善恶树上的果子,你不可吃,因为你吃的日子必定死.”(参创2∶16-17)在起初的创造中,神以各样的果子满足人生存的需要,可以随意吃,又为吃设定了界限:分别善恶树的果子不能吃.     

雇工?牧人?

“雇工”,顾名思义,是指受雇用的工人,得他人的钱财为他人服务,是临时性的工人。有“雇工”就必然存在“雇主”,就是出钱让别人为自己做事,以货币购买劳动力的人。“牧人”则是指放牧牲畜的人;在基督教的思想里,     

启工?牧人?

“雇工”,顾名思义,是指受雇用的工人,得他人的钱财为他人服务,是临时性的工人。有“雇工”就必然存在“雇主”,就是出钱让别人为自己做事,以货币购买劳动力的人。“牧人”则是指放牧牲畜的人;在基督教的思想里,“牧人”有一个特定的含义,是指放牧羊群的工人。“奴隶”是指受人奴役又没有人身自由的人,没有自己该有的权利和福利,不得已地承受所委身的对象的约束和管制,有     

Naturalisms: Scientific? Religious? Theological?

Is nature all there is? Or, is there more? If nature is the only reality, is it ultimate or sacred? Differing answers to these questions determine the different brands of naturalism on the religious shelf. What virtually all of today’s naturalists agree on is this: science provides the means for revealing reality, the sole reality which is material, physical, and cosmic. Naturalists also agree that supranaturalism should be rejected. What naturalists differ on whether nature is divine or not. This article sorts out the issues and differing positions taken on each issue. The author contends that a post-Newtonian worldview remains open to a concept of God wherein divine action in nature’s world influences creativity and transformation.