Nun,
ich denken nicht, dass Luhmann recht hat, wenn er den Idealismus mit der Konfrontation von Erkenntnis und Objekt identifiziert. Der Unterschied zwischen Konstruktivismus und Idealismus liegt auf einer operativen Ebene, aber nicht auf einem unterscheidlichen Erklärungszusammenhang. Wenn für den Phänomologen klar war, dass sich die Dinge in der Erkenntnis organisieren und dass darüber hinaus keine andere Realität existiert, die dahinter steht, dann klingt das schon ziemlich nach Konstruktivismus. The dialectic is indeed related to constructivism, a method that looks at the blind spot excluded middle. Constructivism makes the excluded middle only the form that organizes and brings it to a different way in again: The system is the included / inclusive, third parties, the distinction between system and environment.
Nevertheless, there are the idealists, not necessarily a distinction between knowledge and object. Instead, the idealism out in the end so only the consciousness of meaning as an operator. The difference is instead of materialism in the rejection of an idea form visual instances beyond consciousness. Therefore systems theory can ebhaupten also that the environment can produce only irritated but Never remove systems. I doubt it would register, and not on the question of whether consciousness is transcendental or surgery. I am going to speak to the hegemony of consciousness in the system theory.
If today I still find the time, I'll try that argument by Adorno and Deleuze and Guattari, to support (which explicitly represent a materialist constructivism).
0 comments:
Post a Comment