| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"G7zy76fos9","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":2824,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":4037°Ӻ,"quote":"Among others\nthere were thinkers like Gassendi and Mersenne in France, who argued that it was\nperfectly all right for science to make rational models, but they were always models of\nour experiential world and not models of a real world.\nThis separation of two kinds of knowledge – the rational and the non-rational –\nwas a novel idea in skepticism. If I have called the second “mystical”, some people\nmay think that I intend an evaluation, that I value the mystical less than the rational.\nThis is not so. In that regard I follow the first real constructivist, the Italian\nphilosopher Giambattista Vico, who contrasted the knowledge of reason and the\nknowledge of “poetic imagination” but did not question the value of both. He wrote a\nLatin thesis at the very beginning of the 18th century and called it “De Antiquissima\nItalorum Sapientia”. It is the first constructivist manifesto. Speaking about the real\nworld, Vico said very clearly that humans can only know what humans themselves\nhave made. He crystallized this in the rather beautiful statement that God is the\nartificer of the world, man the god of artifacts.4 (When Vico said “man”, he included\nwomen, which at that time was always taken for granted.)","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321061453010698174142":^°°,^"jQuery321061453010698174142":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1562091494391°
|
