| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Jlmhu5ujc6","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":272°Ӻ,"quote":"((5)) I am surprised that von Glasersfeld, as so many others, associates Piaget’s “assimilation” with stability (33) and “accommodation” with newness (35)&(37). This is almost the opposite of what Piaget means with these concepts! Similarly, I find it insufficient that he quotes Piaget’s equilibration concept without adding Piaget's adjective “majorante.” However you translate this word (“enlarging,” “growing”), it dramatically changes the meaning into almost the opposite of a mechanical balance. No wonder, it is not a helpful concept. \n((6)) The Suggestion that in humans “equilibration” rather than “survival” has become the criterion of adaptation (27) shows again von Glasersfeld’s narrow focus on cognition and the uncritical assumption of a pre-given reality that we “perceive\" and “observe” (31)&(32).","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery32101117355615537122":^°°,^"jQuery32101117355615537122":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"ArgumentationFremd","data_creacio":1579257427723°
|
