Year:

  1. D. Baecker (2015). Mysteries of Cognition. Review of Neocybernetics and Narrative by Bruce Clarke. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):261-263.
    Upshot: Are narratives systems on their own, or rather structures supporting and, if need be, subverting the reproduction of systems? Bruce Clarke inquires into the ability of social systems theory to help understand narratives - and comes across some “mysteries of cognition” concerning the questions of how systems emerge and which of them might be considered self-referential and autopoietic.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. H. Cadenas (2015). The Reality of Ontologies in Luhmann’s Work. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):210-211.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: I discuss the conception of “reality” that Matuszek attributed to Luhmann’s work and the influence of “ontology” on his thought. It is argued that Luhmann’s system theory is based on the distinction system/environment and not on an ontological principle.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. H. Cadenas & M. Arnold (2015). The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):169-176.
    Context: Although the theory of autopoietic systems was originally formulated to explain the phenomenon of life from an operational and temporal perspective, sociologist Niklas Luhmann incorporated it later within his theory of social systems. Due to this adoption, there have been several discussions regarding the applicability of this concept beyond its biological origins. Problem: This article addresses the conception of Luhman’s autopoietic social systems, and confronts this vision with criticism both of the original authors of the concept of autopoiesis and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. H. Cadenas & M. Arnold (2015). Authors’ Response: On the Criticisms Against the Autopoiesis of Social Systems. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):196-202.
    Upshot: Firstly, we discuss the main criticisms of our arguments. Secondly, we address the comments and observations on some parts of our article. We conclude with some reflections about the perspectives of the discussion on the autopoiesis concept.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. P. Cariani (2015). How to Become Omniscient in 12 Easy Steps. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):248-250.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: From the standpoint of epistemology-centered operationalist, pragmatist, constructivist perspectives, which are firmly grounded in the capacities of limited observers, all omniscient observers in realist ontologies and theologies appear both completely unattainable in practice and conceptually incoherent in their formulations. Nevertheless, these ideas may be useful heuristically.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. G. Corsi (2015). The Concept of Autopoiesis: Its Relevance and Consequences for Sociology. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):194-196.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I discuss two aspects of Cadenas & Arnold’s target article. The first concerns some clarifications of the sociological importance of the concept of autopoiesis and the second the criticisms of this concept and its applications in the social sciences.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. R. Desmet (2015). Opening a Door to Whitehead. Review of The Lure of Whitehead Edited by Nicholas Gaskill and A. J. Nocek. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):264-266.
    Upshot: Whitehead has been excluded from contemporary philosophy for a long time. Current fashions in academia have opened a door to Whitehead through Deleuze. The Lure of Whitehead is paradigmatic in this respect. All admirers of Whitehead’s philosophy should rejoice in this evolution - not, however, without realizing that the price is a selective appropriation of Whitehead.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. H. Egner (2015). Believe It or Not!” - It’s About the Truth in Science. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):221-222.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: On an epistemological level, Matuszek argues convincingly that Luhmann’s epistemological ambiguities could be embedded in a coherent constructivist approach. However, what do we gain by being assured of this and why is it so difficult to tolerate ambiguities in an otherwise highly elaborated theory?
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. S. Franchi (2015). Which Events is the World Made Of? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):250-252.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: While I agree with Gasparyan’s incisive critique of the concept of the “general observer,” her use of the concept of “event” is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, she equates “events” to Wittgenstein’s and “configurations of objects” or “states of affairs” and she consider the world as a collection of such states of affairs. On the other hand, she cites Badiou’s work in support of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. M. Füllsack (2015). Who Downed MH-17, or Do Collective Observations Interact Non-Linearly? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):238-239.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: I consider the possibility of replacing the global observer with a collective observer and ask whether the insights generated by such a collective observer would have to be considered subject to non-linear interactions.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. I. Gasparov (2015). How We Can Get an Observer Back. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):237-238.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: I introduce some distinctions that I hold to be useful for understanding the global observer problem and then sketch a hypothetical scenario that suggests the existence of an observer that is as good as a global one.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. D. Gasparyan (2015). What Can the Global Observer Know? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):227-237.
    Context: The detection of objective reality, truth, and lies are still heated topics in epistemology. When discussing these topics, philosophers often resort to certain thought experiments, engaging an important concept that can be broadly identified as “the global observer.” It relates to Putnam’s God’s Eye, Davidson’s Omniscient Interpreter, and the ultimate observer in quantum physics, among others. Problem: The article explores the notion of the global observer as the guarantor of the determinability and configuration of events in the world. It (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. D. Gasparyan (2015). Author’s Response: Denying the Global Observer. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):253-260.
    Upshot: I focus on the group of ideas concerning the nature of the global observer and discuss some important terms regarding the idea of global observation. Furthermore, I address the meta-philosophical problem of how the presence or absence of the global observer influences various philosophical and scientific contexts.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. F. Grote (2015). Society as Constructed Ontology? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):217-218.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: The question of whether contingency can be limited concerns the foundations of sociological systems theory as a theory of cognition. This commentary argues that while such limits may seem plausible and apparent at first, they would consequentially give rise to an ontological notion of society within society. Rather, the commentary proposes to understand the limits identified in the target article as social (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. P. M. Hejl (2015). Explaining Social Systems Without Humans. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):189-192.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I argue in favor of not eliminating humans from social theory. My argumentation is based on the “mechanistic” perspective that emerged in the interdisciplinary context of systems theory but that is lacking in Luhmann’s work. Based on defining communication in the constructivist-mechanist tradition, I claim that research on human universals contributes to solving the constructivist problem of how understanding among (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. E. Imbeault & P. W. Hughes (2015). Phenomenal Consciousness, Affectivity, and Conation: Where Extended Cognition Has Never Gone Before. Review of Feeling Extended: Sociality as Extended Body-Becoming-Mind by Douglas Robinson. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):271-273.
    Upshot: Douglas Robinson argues for a revision of the extended mind theory that incorporates intersubjectivity and qualia. Robinson argues that “material extendedness” is less important than accounting for the subjective experience of what he terms “body-becoming-mind,” and that this experience, rather than mere computational equivalence between intra- and transcranial cognition, is the strongest argument in favour of the EMT.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. A. Karafillidis (2015). Ontogenesis, Or: If You Want to Study Ontology, Do Not Use Ontology. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):214-216.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek omits the decisive notions of autology and re-entry in order to construe and subsequently find Luhmann’s ontology. What is more, the whole endeavour to discover ontology in Luhmann’s work is questionable. It misses the point that a systems theory based on operative constructivism is obviously developed for researching ontogenetic processes.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. V. Kenny (2015). Transcending Illusions and Illusions of Transcendence. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):242-245.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: Starting from the problem of having to write in a language heavily saturated by realism, this commentary limits itself to restating some key notions of radical constructivism, which, by paying attention to the strict limits of what we can claim to know, can more readily eliminate notions such as the “omniscient interpreter.”.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. R. D. King (2015). Does Social Systems Theory Need a General Theory of Autopoiesis? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):183-185.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: The authors claim that it is justified to extend the concept of autopoiesis from its biological origin to other disciplines, predominately those that have a social character. However, the authors do not lay strong enough conceptual grounds to justify this extension of autopoiesis because it is unclear what concept of autopoiesis it is that would achieve this objective, or why (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. P. Kügler (2015). Many Possible Observers Instead of the Global One. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):240-242.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: Even well-founded criticism of the notion of the global observer does not immediately challenge contemporary metaphysical realism. A viable alternative to the latter, and to far-reaching constructivist positions on the other side, originates in replacing global observation with actual and possible local observations.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. D. Laflamme (2015). Communication is Meaning-Based Autopoiesis. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):192-194.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: Autopoiesis based on meaning is a rich conceptual tool. It would be a pity to reduce it to a few general statements on self-reference in social systems.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. H. R. Maturana (2015). What Is Sociology? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):176-179.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I discuss the foundations of what I have said in my work as a biologist on autopoiesis, molecular autopoietic systems and social systems. I argue that the theme of sociology should be to understand how is it that we come out of the social manner of living that is the foundation of our origin as languaging and reflecting human beings.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. K. C. Matuszek (2015). Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):203-210.
    Context: In the literature concerning the theory of social systems, interest in epistemological and ontological questions has increased in recent years. The controversies regarding a realist vs. constructivist interpretation of Luhmann’s theory, as well as the concept of many realities that correspond to many ontologies, deserve attention. Problem: The paper discusses interrelated ontological and epistemological problems in Luhmann’s systems theory, such as ontology and de-ontologization, realism vs. constructivism, contingency and its limits and one vs. many realities. Method: The paper proposes (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. K. C. Matuszek (2015). Author’s Response: The Epistemological Argument. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):223-226.
    Upshot: The commentaries concentrate mostly on ontological issues but overlook the main epistemological argument in my target article. This argument refers to the conditions that make cognition possible, and to the limits of cognition. These are important for two reasons: they have ontological consequences and they limit the theory’s contingency.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. T. Mavrofides (2015). So, What Do You Think About Luhmann’s Ontology? Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):211-212.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek’s article is about the way Luhmann reshaped but failed to eliminate ontology. I try to contribute with some thoughts about how Luhmann’s theory is in fact based on certain ontological assumptions.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. K. Pavlov-Pinus (2015). Human Knowledge and “As-If” Knowledge of Ideal Observers. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):239-240.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: My comments are aimed at certain difficulties and ambivalent statements in Gasparyan’s paper that are necessary to clarify before any productive discussion can start. Particularly, the underlying problem of her research should be made more explicit and internal differentiation of various research contexts should be more precise.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. A. Scholl (2015). Searching and Finding Ontology. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):218-221.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek’s article criticizes Luhmann’s systems theory in particular and constructivism in general with respect to philosophical inconsistency caused by some ontological implications of constructivist epistemology. Providing a coherent interpretation of ontology and epistemology is worth the effort in order to solve philosophical problems. However, the question arises of whether philosophical reasoning actually is of any relevance for empirical research. I argue that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. E. Solomonova (2015). Primacy of Consciousness and Enactive Imagination. Review of Waking, Dreaming, Being: Self and Consciousness in Neuroscience, Meditation and Philosophy by Evan Thompson. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):267-270.
    Upshot: This interdisciplinary work draws on phenomenology, Indian philosophy, Tibetan Buddhism, cognitive neurosciences and a variety of personal and literary examples of conscious phenomena. Thompson proposes a view of consciousness and self as dynamic embodied processes, co-dependent with the world. According to this view, dreaming is a process of spontaneous imagination and not a delusional hallucination. This work aims at laying the ground for systematic neurophenomenological investigation of first-person experience.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Mog Stapleton (2015). A Dynamic Expedition Through the Affective Landscape. Review of The Feeling Body: Affective Science Meets the Enactive Mind by Giovanna Colombetti. [REVIEW] Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):274-276.
    Upshot: Colombetti’s book is a contribution to the literature of at least three intellectual communities within philosophy and the cognitive sciences: affective science, embodiment, and enactivism. Despite the emphasis on embodiment over the past ten to fifteen years, and the resurgence of interest in emotion in the mid-to-late twentieth century, affect nevertheless remains underrepresented in the philosophy of mind and cognition, even in the embodiment and enactive communities. In her book, Colombetti helps to close this gap in the literature.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. J. Stewart (2015). Missing: The Socio-Political Dimension. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):185-186.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: Cadenas and Arnold argue in favour of deploying the concept of autopoiesis to study human societies. This OPC makes a case for the opposition: autopoiesis is not an appropriate tool for studying human societies, and attempts to do so both miss out key aspects of human societies and, incidentally, damage the concept of autopoiesis.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. H. Urrestarazu (2015). Towards a Consistent Constructivist General Systems Theory. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):180-183.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: Cadenas and Arnold contribute towards a better understanding of what is at stake in the long debate concerning the applicability of Maturana’s autopoiesis concept to social systems. However, their target article has two shortcomings: it does not provide a deeper understanding of the reasons why Luhmann’s adoption of the autopoiesis concept has proved to be sterile after decades of debate; (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. R. Vanderstraeten (2015). The Forgotten Temporal Dimension of Luhmann’s Constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):212-214.
    Open peer commentary on the article “Ontology, Reality and Construction in Niklas Luhmann’s Theory” by Krzysztof C. Matuszek. Upshot: Matuszek’s article points to some ambiguities in Luhmann’s late work, but the reinterpretations he offers suffer from various sociological and philosophical difficulties. By elaborating on the relevance of time in Luhmann’s operational constructivism, this commentary opens up some alternative interpretations.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. K. Werner (2015). Cognitive Evolution and the Idea of a Global Observer. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):245-248.
    Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: I propose a simple way of representing the idea of global observation, broadly understood: a pair composed of an observer and the observer’s location ; the idea of occupying all possible viewpoints at once; the idea of a view from nowhere (no viewpoint. According to the hypothesis proposed in the article, these are all consecutive stages in the evolution of cognition. I elaborate in detail (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. M. Zeleny (2015). Autopoiesis Applies to Social Systems Only. Constructivist Foundations 10 (2):186-189.
    Open peer commentary on the article “The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms” by Hugo Cadenas & Marcelo Arnold. Upshot: I reaffirm and extend the notion of social autopoiesis away from mere labels and descriptions to acting physical components of social systems and societies, ranging from subcellular to biological and human. All self-producing biological organisms are essentially societies of interacting components and therefore notions of autopoiesis and social systems are fundamentally, if not definitionally, interrelated. Some examples of real-life applications (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues