| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Vxbtilcghi","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ29Ӻ/supӶ1Ӻ/aӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":4°Ӻ,"quote":"For us, the important difference between Vico and Berkeley, as well as later idealists, is that Vico considers man’s rational knowledge and the world of rational experience simultaneous products of man’s cognitive construction.Ӷ20Ӻ Thus Vico’s “knowledge” is what, today, we might call an awareness of the operations that result in our experiential world. Though Berkeley says “that all the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any subsistence without a mind, their being is to be perceived or known,”Ӷ21Ӻ and thus presupposes the activity of the intellect, his accent always lies on the being, whereas Vico invariably stresses human knowledge and its construction. \nThere can be no doubt that Vico’s explicit use of facere, his constant reference to the composing, the putting together and, in short, the active construction of all knowledge and experience come very much closer to Piaget’s genetic epistemology and to modern constructivism in general, than did Berkeley. Nowhere does that become clearer than in a statement with which Vico anticipated the epistemological attitude of some of today’s philosophers of science: “Human knowledge is nothing else but the endeavor to make things correspond to one another in shapely proportion.”Ӷ22Ӻ","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°,^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°,^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°,^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°,^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°,^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°,^"jQuery3210202764590961224342":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1560439832127°
|
