„Wahrheit“, „Lügen“ und Mehr: erkenntnistheoretische Voraussetzungen für einen konstruktiven politischen Diskurs

Wilhelm Kempf
{"title":"„Wahrheit“, „Lügen“ und Mehr: erkenntnistheoretische Voraussetzungen für einen konstruktiven politischen Diskurs","authors":"Wilhelm Kempf","doi":"10.1007/s43638-023-00077-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Building on methodical constructivism, the paper examines the differences between trans-subjectively founded (objective) reality, merely intersubjectively agreed (social) reality, and subjective reality in the narrow sense, and refutes the social constructivist view according to which every representation of reality only offers a distorted image of reality, so that all representations of reality stand side by side on an equal footing. Admitting that socially constructed reality is necessarily selective and therefore an interpreted (meaningful) reality, the paper argues that truth vs. falsehood is not the only criterion by which a construction of reality can be measured. Although the discourse about meanings cannot be a discourse about whether they are true or false, constructions of reality can nonetheless be questioned for their appropriateness for constructive problem solving. Political discourse, however, is all too often not about problem solving, but about gaining power, maintaining power, and using power in order to enforce one’s own positions. Appropriateness then gets replaced by mere expediency, and populist politicians drive this to a perfection in which their careless handling of truth is only the tip of the iceberg. At the base of the iceberg, there is the refusal of coexistence and the destruction of reasonable common ground, and the primary question that arises for social research is that of social pathologies that help populists’ (subjective) reality to become shared by (at least) parts of society.","PeriodicalId":479737,"journal":{"name":"Cultura & Psyché","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultura & Psyché","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43638-023-00077-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Building on methodical constructivism, the paper examines the differences between trans-subjectively founded (objective) reality, merely intersubjectively agreed (social) reality, and subjective reality in the narrow sense, and refutes the social constructivist view according to which every representation of reality only offers a distorted image of reality, so that all representations of reality stand side by side on an equal footing. Admitting that socially constructed reality is necessarily selective and therefore an interpreted (meaningful) reality, the paper argues that truth vs. falsehood is not the only criterion by which a construction of reality can be measured. Although the discourse about meanings cannot be a discourse about whether they are true or false, constructions of reality can nonetheless be questioned for their appropriateness for constructive problem solving. Political discourse, however, is all too often not about problem solving, but about gaining power, maintaining power, and using power in order to enforce one’s own positions. Appropriateness then gets replaced by mere expediency, and populist politicians drive this to a perfection in which their careless handling of truth is only the tip of the iceberg. At the base of the iceberg, there is the refusal of coexistence and the destruction of reasonable common ground, and the primary question that arises for social research is that of social pathologies that help populists’ (subjective) reality to become shared by (at least) parts of society.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
算是"真相","谎言"之类的
摘要:本文在系统建构主义的基础上,考察了跨主体建立的(客观)现实、仅仅是主体间认同的(社会)现实和狭义的主观现实之间的区别,驳斥了社会建构主义的观点,即所有的现实表象都只是提供了一种扭曲的现实形象,所有的现实表象都是平等地并存的。承认社会建构的现实必然是选择性的,因此是一种被解释的(有意义的)现实,本文认为真理与谬误并不是衡量现实建构的唯一标准。尽管关于意义的论述不能是关于它们是真还是假的论述,但现实的建构仍然可以被质疑,因为它们是否适合建设性地解决问题。然而,政治话语往往不是为了解决问题,而是为了获得权力、维护权力和利用权力来加强自己的立场。然后,适当性被纯粹的权宜之计所取代,民粹主义政客将这种情况推向完美,而他们对真相的粗心处理只是冰山一角。在冰山的底部,存在着对共存的拒绝和对合理共同点的破坏,而社会研究中出现的主要问题是帮助民粹主义者的(主观)现实被(至少)部分社会所共享的社会病态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Literatur und Psychologie. Zum Erkenntnispotenzial fiktionaler Welten Postwahrheit und wissenschaftliche Autorität „Wahrheit“, „Lügen“ und Mehr: erkenntnistheoretische Voraussetzungen für einen konstruktiven politischen Diskurs Correction to: Urban walking as a practice of care: sensorial activism in Durban, South Africa Touching an elephant in a dark room: philosophical, psychological, and literary perspectives on dementia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1