Comments and Questions from Presentation

Susanne Winchester@susanne-winchester

general

#1 · 22nd July 2020, 3:44 pm

Quote from Susanne Winchester on 22nd July 2020, 3:44 pm
These comments and questions were gathered during the presentation and discussion:

It feels like socio constructivist and sociocultural are interchangable but I believe there are important differences?

The ontology of the socio-constructivists is a relativist one. But some socio-culturalists would subscribe to that, as well....

I am engaged with Laclau and Mouffes' theory and its further elaborations. It is radical constructivism, but they say they are not relativist.

(Cobb, 1994). The difference between socio-cultural and constructivist theory in education is explained as the latter being focussed on the individual whereas the former is concerned with the participation in a culture: individual knowledge (math as an active construction) versus knowledge as a discipline (maths as an enculturation). In that sense socio-culturalism is a broader perspective than constructivist theory
http://oro.open.ac.uk/60076/1/2019_Thesis_Martina_Emke_final.pdf
Is post-humanism then also anti-Enlightenment

is reason the only factor that makes humans human???

so Deleuze & Guattari try to overcome the binary of (individual) agency and structure?

I wouldn't personally say so, but Enlightenment replaced God with the rationally thinking man. So, in Kant, anything that man cannot understand and reason about, belongs to the realm of metaphysics and therefroe cannot be known philosophically. Kant points to four unknowable ontological categories: God, the unversity, being, the soul. We might add discourse to this list. If we include machines and animals into reason, we might be able to shift the limits (noumena) of knowing. I think that the notion of rhisome in fact challenges the very notion of noumenon. There is no hierarchy, everything is networked. So, rhizomatically, we can know and even proove gods.

since we are pondering upon the significance of reason in shaping a human being, if we contextualise it in terms of our state apparatuses we can experience the sentimentalism of imagined communities and 'fear of small numbers'--is dominating the reasoning and debates of public sphere. If you are here then you are Rashtrawadi and if you are holding an otherwise notion of freedom and expression than us then you are Rashtradroshi. Alas, dukh ki baat hai.

These comments and questions were gathered during the presentation and discussion:

It feels like socio constructivist and sociocultural are interchangable but I believe there are important differences?
The ontology of the socio-constructivists is a relativist one. But some socio-culturalists would subscribe to that, as well....
I am engaged with Laclau and Mouffes' theory and its further elaborations. It is radical constructivism, but they say they are not relativist.
(Cobb, 1994). The difference between socio-cultural and constructivist theory in education is explained as the latter being focussed on the individual whereas the former is concerned with the participation in a culture: individual knowledge (math as an active construction) versus knowledge as a discipline (maths as an enculturation). In that sense socio-culturalism is a broader perspective than constructivist theory
http://oro.open.ac.uk/60076/1/2019_Thesis_Martina_Emke_final.pdf
Is post-humanism then also anti-Enlightenment
is reason the only factor that makes humans human???
so Deleuze & Guattari try to overcome the binary of (individual) agency and structure?
I wouldn't personally say so, but Enlightenment replaced God with the rationally thinking man. So, in Kant, anything that man cannot understand and reason about, belongs to the realm of metaphysics and therefroe cannot be known philosophically. Kant points to four unknowable ontological categories: God, the unversity, being, the soul. We might add discourse to this list. If we include machines and animals into reason, we might be able to shift the limits (noumena) of knowing. I think that the notion of rhisome in fact challenges the very notion of noumenon. There is no hierarchy, everything is networked. So, rhizomatically, we can know and even proove gods.
since we are pondering upon the significance of reason in shaping a human being, if we contextualise it in terms of our state apparatuses we can experience the sentimentalism of imagined communities and 'fear of small numbers'--is dominating the reasoning and debates of public sphere. If you are here then you are Rashtrawadi and if you are holding an otherwise notion of freedom and expression than us then you are Rashtradroshi. Alas, dukh ki baat hai.