Radical Realism

Radical Constructivism is a prominent proponent of radical constructivism, which claims that knowledge is the self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. That is, the process of constructing knowledge regulates itself, and since knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data, it is impossible to know the extent to which knowledge reflects an ontological reality. For example, our hands are real, tangible, and are a physical component anatomically on humans. However, radical realists believe that hands are not anatomically there because our brain is telling us that they are present even though our mind could be deceiving us. Such as in the examples that if someone were to lose a limb (extremity), constructive realists would say that there is no arm present, (which there is not) but in response the human being who had lost the limb may think that the limb is still there. This brings me to the argument that traditional realist theories of knowledge assume that truth is a correspondence relation (as stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog post). For example when a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise). Now when we analyze that if we can conceive an “unexperienced apple”, we must analyze the argument from both sides, the view of a constructive realist and the side of a non-constructive realist (Can range from an epistemologist to a normal human being).

From the view of a constructive realist, we probably can conceive an unexperienced apple because the knowledge of an apple is a self-organized cognitive process of the human brain. In laments, terms if we have knowledge of an unexperienced apple, than an unexperienced apple can be conceived by the human mind. However, from another perspective, an unexperienced apple cannot be conceived by the human mind because there is no such thing as an unexperienced apple. From the view of a normal human being, the inexperience of an apple is more of an event rather than a concept. You can experience an apple by consuming it or making it into some type of art. Nevertheless, as from the equation stated in Dr. Johnson’s blog, (When a concept (C) corresponds to the way the world (W) is, it is true (and false otherwise) this statement does not correspond with the way the world is thus being false. In addition, we must ask are these concepts in the mind, can they be conceptualized, and are some of these concepts some of “x”. If these first three questions do not correspond to an unexperienced apple (does not exist because it does not correspond with the way the world is, than the statement is false) than we cannot conceptually experience an unexperienced apple.

1.Is there such thing as an unexperienced apple?
2.Why do constructive realists argue with “things” that are here (such as hands) are not real?