Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructivism | Constructivism, philosophy: the thesis that the objects of the external world, together with their properties and relations are constructed by the brain to other objects and their relations to us. Constructivist styles are differently strong in their assumptions about the existence and recognizability of an objective, independent reality. See also Autopoiesis, system theory, Luhmann, Maturana. |
||
| Constructivism | Searle | III 168 Constructivism/Maturana: the nervous systems (autopoietic) creates reality. >Autopoiesis. SearleVsMaturana: genetic fallacy: from the fact that our image of reality is constructed, it does not follow that reality is constructed. >Constructivism/Maturana. Maturana: rejects the idea of an "objective reality" in favour of the idea that nervous systems like autopoietic systems create their own reality. Since we have no idea and no access to reality except through social construction, there is no independent reality. >Objectivity/Maturana, >Reality/Maturana. SearleVsMaturana: from the fact that our knowledge/imagination/image of reality is constructed by human brains in social interactions, it does not follow that reality has been created by human brains. III 169 Genetic misconception: a problem beyond that: would the interactions themselves also be constructed by interaction? >Regress. Winograd: example: "there is water in the fridge". Relative to different backgrounds you can make statements that are true or false. From this he concludes that reality does not exist independently of our representations. SearleVsWinograd: the genetic fallacy as in Maturana confuses our image (background) with reality. Cf. >Background/Searle, >Terminology/Searle. --- Derrida: "Il n'y a pas de "hors texte"". SearleVsDerrida: this is simply claimed without argument. In a later polemical answer he seems to take everything back anyway. He claims that the whole thing only means banality, that everything exists in one context or another. >Derrida. |
Searle I John R. Searle The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 German Edition: Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996 Searle II John R. Searle Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind, Cambridge/MA 1983 German Edition: Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991 Searle III John R. Searle The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995 German Edition: Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997 Searle IV John R. Searle Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1979 German Edition: Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982 Searle V John R. Searle Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983 Searle VII John R. Searle Behauptungen und Abweichungen In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle VIII John R. Searle Chomskys Revolution in der Linguistik In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle IX John R. Searle "Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| Events | Luhmann | Baraldi I 33 Event/Luhmann: events have no duration - e.g. communication, thoughts. These elements cannot be changed. Only structures can be changed. Stability of systems must therefore be build on structures, not on autopoiesis (sic), which is determined by events. >Autopoiesis, >Time/Luhmann, >Structure/Luhmann. --- AU Cass. 11 Event/Luhmann: events have no duration - e.g. communication, thoughts - these elements cannot be changed - only structures can be changed. |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Baraldi I C. Baraldi, G.Corsi. E. Esposito GLU: Glossar zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme Frankfurt 1997 |
| Exterior/interior | Maturana | I 98 Recursion/within/without/Maturana: through recursive distinctions the observer can operate as if he moves outside his circumstances. (Self-reference, application of operations an operations). >Recursion, >Self-reference. I 113f Unity/closed system/Maturana: within/without is only for the observer not by Input/Output describable, otherwise open system. >Systems, >Input/Output. I 121 Distinction from hallucination for nervous system not possible, part of the cognitive domain of the observer. >Observation/Maturana, >Nervous system. I 183 Definition Life/Maturana: in ontogenetic drift push through a range of interference, while a constantly changing niche is realized. >Life, >Niche. Living System/: operates only in the present. - It is open for the passage of molecules (parts of autopoietic systems). Purpose: is part of the observer. >Purposes. Living systems have no within/without - they are in the process of autopoiesis or disintegrated. >Autopoiesis. Environment: is not "used" by the system. - Instead living systems they bring their own niche out. I 194 Life is knowledge - living systems are cognitive systems. >Knowledge, >Cognition. |
Maturana I Umberto Maturana Biologie der Realität Frankfurt 2000 |
| Structures | Luhmann | Baraldi I 184 Structures/Luhmann/GLU: unlike autopoiesis (sic): structures are permanent. - They serve the selection of relations. >Autopoiesis. Also, the selection of selections. - Structures do not consist of elements. - (Element: of systems: without duration). >Events/Luhmann. --- AU Cass 5 Structure/System Theory/LuhmannVsTradition: The structures only work at the moment and for the duration, when the system operates. Tradition: assumed, structures are the enduring, processes pass. Structures are expectations in relation to connectivity of operations. >Operation/Luhmann. If the structure concept defines expectations, the subject/object distinction is insignificant. Cf. >Subject/Object-Problem. --- AU Cas 5 Structure/Luhmann: a system can choose from many structures. - E.g. Language: is not limited to one sentence. - The operations of the system require structures. - Subsequently both are dependent on each other. >Language/Luhmann. --- AU Cass 14 Structure/tradition/Luhmann: earlier, structures were considered as something permanent. - Structuralism/Levi-Strauss: new: there will be a cognitive, analytical element added: structures are also knowledge conditions. Subject of knowledge can also be science. Not everything can be connected to everything. Structures are often defined through expectations, but it would be better if that works differently - but how? - Expectations are too subjective. Cf. >Subjectivity. --- AU Cas 14 Structure/Luhmann: structures should not be assumed as unchangeable. - It is not just about the distinction before/after, but about the determination about processes. How to distinguish structure and process? Structure: is only real in the moment of use. Reality: only the operations themselves. >Reality/Luhmann, >Operation/Luhmann. So the system theory of the distinction between structure/process is taken out. - Advantage: then systems are not composed of two elements (structure and event). >Event/Luhmann. Structure: clarifies how an operation connects to the other. AU Cass 14 Structure/Luhmann: arises from the mixed requirements of specification and generalization. >Generalization, >Specification. |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Baraldi I C. Baraldi, G.Corsi. E. Esposito GLU: Glossar zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme Frankfurt 1997 |
| Systems | Luhmann | Baraldi I 195 System/Environment/Luhmann/GLU/(s): System is the basic concept of system theory. Outside: is always more complex than the inside. >Outside/inside/Luhmann. System: helps to reduce complexity. No system can operate outside its borders. Each system is identified by its own operation. >Operation/Luhmann. Environment: is not surrounded by borders but by horizons. It itself is not a system. It has no own operations. But it is not passive. >Environment/Talcott Parsons. --- Reese-Schäfer II 47 System/Luhmann/Reese-Schäfer: autopoietic systems have no other form of environmental contact than self contact. >Autopoiesis. Take only environmental impacts by transforming them into their own frequency. - E.g. social system has no use for consciousness. --- AU Cass 3 System/closed systems/Luhmann: closed systems cannot be found in the world. - We only consider open systems: biology, social system etc. - So-called operational (closed) systems are only seemingly different. --- AU Cass 4 System/Luhmann: a system can distinguish itself from the environment. --- AU Cass 8 System/environment/complexity/Luhmann: the environment of a system is always more complex than the system. Therefore, the system cannot establish a point-to-point relationship with the environment. - Therefore complexity must be reduced or ignored . For example, call different things by the same name. >Complexity/Luhmann. --- AU Cass 8 System/Luhmann: a system has subdivisions - E.g. planning for the system. - Dor the subdividions, the system is environment itself. Loosely coupled systems are more stable. - E.g. employees can be exchanged. >Form/Luhmann. Fixed coupling is not found in nature. - In systems not everything is connected with everything! - Not like Newton. --- AU Cass 11 System/Luhmann: a system is not an object but a difference. I am in my environment. I am not in society, otherwise others would think my thoughts, etc. Individuals/Systems theory: In this way, system theory allows individualism. HabermasVsLuhmann: radical individualism is not sought. LuhmannVsHabermas: the society does not have to strive for a "human aim". - ((s) This is an aim for humans, society is not a human.) --- AU Cass 14 System/Luhmann: E.g. conflicts are systems. - Because it brings the other in a limited range of variation of responses. Conflicts have an organizing force. VsSystemtheory/VsLuhmann: critiques say, here conflicts are underexposed. LuhmannVsVs: not here. Conflict: can lead to a too strong integration. Conflicts are spreading more with a fixed coupling. >Form/Luhmann. |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Baraldi I C. Baraldi, G.Corsi. E. Esposito GLU: Glossar zu Luhmanns Theorie sozialer Systeme Frankfurt 1997 Reese-Schäfer II Walter Reese-Schäfer Luhmann zur Einführung Hamburg 2001 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dennett, D. | Luhmann Vs Dennett, D. | Theory/unity/Luhmann: important that one maintains the strictness of the term. A system cannot be "a bit" autopoietic. The concept of autopoiesis is not gradual, but that means that you cannot explain the evolution of complex systems with the concept of autopoiesis. If you try this, one would have to say that a system will slowly become autopoietically. (Gunther Täubner in Florence has proposed this). Even business models gradualize autopoiesis. "Relative autonomy". (> Dennett: slow emergence of intentionality). Autopoiesis/Luhmann: in reality autopoiesis does not state anything about dependence or independence of the environment. That would be a question that an observer would have to answer (and even ask) from the outside. One cannot assume a DF "total consistency model": "the more independent a system is, the less dependent it is." If you engage in this you would have to say the contrary, that it increases in dependence and independence at the same time. (Kass.5). |
AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 |
| Luhmann, N. | Verschiedene Vs Luhmann, N. | II 48 System/closed/open: in system theory the comparison of closed and open systems is generally valid - with a certain preference for openness. Self-organisation/autopoiesis/openness: "Closedness of the self-referential mode of operation is rather a form of extension of possible environmental contact. VsLuhmann: here one could speak of two levels of description. Critics accuse Luhmann of blurriness here. II 119 SchäferVsLuhmann: morality has more to do with observance of norms than with respect, regardless of religious or other values. HabermasVsLuhmann: Vs Functionalization of the Concept of Truth. Even system theory itself cannot claim any particular validity for its statements. It is only one kind of action among others. Theory is action. But this can only be said again if one ultimately adopts a theoretical point of view outside of practice. II 142 SchäferVsLuhmann: this problem will be solved later by the not quite clean logically "re-entry". Kass.8 VsLuhmann: one always hears that this is terribly abstract. I did not want to deny abstractness either. VsLuhmann: his whole theory could never be proved empirically! VsLuhmann: it is logically inadmissible to handle paradoxes in this way. LuhmannVsVs: brings in the concept of "supervacuus": "superfluous" (actually "over-empty"). Question: if you cannot show with the terms how other things are connected and how not. If you start like this, then you cannot connect any more. The power of such a theory lies in inserting probes into an established theory to see if areas can be better covered. VsLuhmann: if you take the whole thing seriously, the system should also contain its own negation. Otherwise it is not perfectly autonomous. LuhmannVsVs: here I have to resort to my note box (with tens of thousands of notes): one note says that all other notes are wrong! Kass.11 Renate MeinsVsLuhmann: System Theory without action is like a lady without a lower abdomen. LuhmannVsMeins: in reality it is much worse, she has no body at all, it is not part of the social system. Meins: So what are you actually talking about? Luhmann: one only wants to dismiss the concept of action out of this gluing function between individual and society. AU Kass 5 Def Structures/Luhmann: are therefore expectations with regard to the connectivity of operations, be it of mere experience, be it of action and not in a sense that must be meant subjectively. VsLuhmann: a critique of this concept of expectation amounts to subjectivation. Subject/Object/System/Luhmann: for a theory that defines the structural concept of expectations, the subject/object distinction is insignificant at all. Johannes BergerVsLuhmann: expectation is subjective, and therefore useless for the more objective sociology. Luhmann: you will certainly also have experienced that one can statistically examine structures as objective facts. Without considering the thoughts of individual persons. Luhmann: but I try to get out of this System/Object distinction and replace it with the concept of the operation that a system actually performs when it performs it or the observation of this operation by the system or an external observer. Then expectation is no longer subjective, but it is only the question: how do structures reduce complexity? |
|
| Maturana, H. | Verschiedene Vs Maturana, H. | Kanitscheider II 21 KanitscheiderVsConstructivism/VsMaturana: moves closer to Fichte's absolute idealism, in which the ego sets the world. 1 Nature becomes fiction. As a starting point, however, at least the constructing cognitive faculty and its biological carrier must be assumed. 2. Problem: the epistemic status of illusions. Both in everyday life and in science we are able to eliminate deceptions. Someone who invokes illusions does not live long. (Evolutionist ArgumentVsMaturana). Something seems to prevent us from creating arbitrary worlds. Reality/Kanitscheider: as explanation for success and failure we accept the resistance of an autonomous reality. (PutnamVs). BiologistsVsMaturana: what do we gain if we still call the known chemical processes autopoiesis? (Luhmann Kass.5). |
Kanitsch I B. Kanitscheider Kosmologie Stuttgart 1991 Kanitsch II B. Kanitscheider Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996 |
| Reductionism | Luhmann Vs Reductionism | AU Kass 11 Autopoiesis/Luhmann: For example one could describe communication solely on the basis of physical or psychological facts. Then autopoiesis was missing as was the case with purely chemical description of a cell. Autopoiesis can only be performed in the living system, not in the description. LuhmannVsReduction/LuhmannVsReductionism: this shows, that emergence is only possible by complete uncoupling of energetic and material conditions which form systems on another level - N.B.: there are no drastic effects - these would be destructive. |
Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 |
| Various Authors | Luhmann Vs Various Authors | Habermas I 436 VsParsons: simply reproduces the classical model through systems. (Social system = action system). Luhmann instead: human as part of the environment of society. This changes the premises of all questions. Methodical anti-humanism. Habermas I 440 LuhmannVsHumanism: "Cardinal Error". A fusion of social and material dimensions. Reese-Schäfer II 28 LuhmannVsDualism: of observer and object. Universality/Vs: the total view, the universality had to be given up and was replaced by "critique", with which the subject's point of view on universality is rounded up again". Foundation/Luhmann: there is no last stop. (Like Quine, Sellars, Rorty). Reese-Schäfer II 42 VsMarx: rejects the speech of "social contradictions": it is simply about a conflict of interests. Competition is not a contradiction either: two people can certainly aspire to the same good. Contradiction/Luhmann: arises only from the self-reference of sense. Not as in Marx. Contradictions/Legal System: does not serve for the avoidance, but for the regulation of conflicts. Reese-Schäfer II 78 Freedom of Value: (Max Weber): the renunciation of valuations is, so to speak, the blind spot of a second level observation. Reese-Schäfer II 89 Vs Right Politics: here there is no theory at all that would be able to read other theories. There is only apercus or certain literary guiding ideas. Reese-Schäfer II 90/91 VsGehlen: we do not have to subordinate ourselves to the institutions. Reese-Schäfer II 102 VsAction Theory: a very vague concept of individuals that can only be defined by pointing at people. Thus language habits are presented as language knowledge: because language requires us to employ subjects. LL. Language. Reese-Schäfer II 103 Reason/VsAdorno: one should not resign oneself (dialectic of the Enlightenment) but ask whether it does not get better without reason! Reese-Schäfer II 112 Overstimulation/LuhmannVsTradition: cannot take place at all. For already the neurophysiological apparatus drastically shields the consciousness. The operative medium sense does the rest. Reese-Schäfer II 138 Human/Gehlen: tried to determine the human from its difference to the animal. (LuhmannVs). AU Cass. 3 VsParsons: Terminology limited by structural functionalism: one could not ask about the function of structures, or examine terms such as inventory or inventory prerequisite, variable or the whole methodological area. Limitation by the fact that a certain object was assumed as given. There were no criteria for the existence of the object - instead the theory must be able to contain all deviance and dysfunction. (not possible with Parsons) - Question: in which time period and which bandwidths is a system identifiable? (e.g. Revolution: is society still the same society afterwards?) Inventory criteria Biology: Definition by death. The living reproduces itself by its own means. Self-reference (important in modern system theory) is not possible within the framework of the Parsons' model. Therefore we need interdisciplinary solutions. VsAction Theory: the concept of action is not suitable because an actor is assumed! But it also exists without an observer! In principle, an action can be presented as a solitary thing without social resonance! - Paradox/Luhmann: the procedure of the dissolution of the paradox is logically objectionable, but is constantly applied by the logicians themselves: they use a change of levels. The only question that must not be asked is: what is the unity of the difference of planes? (AU Cass. 4) VsEquilibrium Theories: questionable today; 1. from the point of view of natural science: it is precisely the imbalances which are stable, equilibrium is rather metaphor. (AU Cass. 6) Tradition: "Transmission of patterns from generation to generation". Stored value patterns that are offered again and again and adopted by the offspring. However, these patterns are still the same. VsTradition: Question: Where does identity come from in the first place? How could one talk about selfhood without an external observer? That will not be much different either with the assumptions of a reciprocal relationship with learning. Luhmann: instead: (Autopoiesis): Socialization is always self-socialization. AU Cass 6 Information/Luhmann: the term must now be adapted to it! In the 70s one spoke of "genetic information", treated structures as informative, the genetic code contained information. Luhmann: this is wrong, because genes only contain structures and no events! The semantic side of the term remained unexplained for a long time, i.e. the question of what information can choose from. Reese-Schäfer II 76 LuhmannVsMarx/Reese-Schäfer: rejects the talk of "social contradictions": it is simply about a conflict of interests. Competition is not a contradiction either: two people can certainly strive for the same good. AU Cass 11 Emergence/Reductionism/System Theory/Luhmann: this does not even pose the actual question: what actually distinguishes an emergent system? What is the characteristic for the distinction from the basal state? What is the criterion that enables emergence? Will Martens: (Issue 4, Kölner Zeitschrift f. Sozialforschung): Autopoiesis of social systems. It deals with the question following the concept of autopoiesis and communication. Communication/Luhmann: Tripartite structure: Information, Communication, Understanding (not action sequences). (Comes from linguistics, but also antiquity!). Martens: this tripartite division is the psychological foundation of communication. Communication must first be negotiated in the individual head, I must see what I assume to be unknown and what I want to choose, and my body must also be in good shape. Marten's thesis: sociality only comes about in the synthesis of these three components. Social things arise when information, communication and understanding are created as a unit with repercussions on the participating mental systems, which must behave accordingly. The unity is only the synthesis itself, while the elements still have to be described psychologically or biologically etc. Without this foundation it does not work. LuhmannVsMartens: I hope you fall for it! At first that sounds very plausible. But now comes the question: What is communicated in the text by Martens? Certainly not the blood circulation! There is also no blood in the text! The editors would already fight this off, there is also no state of consciousness in the text! So I cannot imagine what the author was thinking! I can well imagine that he was supplied with blood and sat in front of the computer. And that he wanted to take part in the discussion. Luhmann: these are all constructions which are suggested in communication, but which are not actually present in communication. (>Interpenetration). Communication/LuhmannVsMartens: Question: what is actually claimed in the text, and does it not actually refute it itself? Paradox: the text that tells of blood and thoughts claims to bring blood and thoughts, but it only brings letters and what a skilled reader can make of the text. That is communication. That is all I can actually see! Communication/Luhmann: if you think realistically and operatively, you cannot see more in the text. We have to put the words together from the letters ourselves. When psychic systems respond to communication, they change their internal states accordingly. Communication/Luhmann: if one has received this message (from Martens), one can say: everything is actually correct, one could describe a communication completely on the basis of physical or psychological facts. Nothing would be missing, with the exception of autopoiesis itself. Question: we have to explain how communication maintains itself without incorporating psychological and physical operations! Luhmann: this reproduction of communication through communication goes only through total exclusion from physical, psychological, etc. operations. |
Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 Reese-Schäfer II Walter Reese-Schäfer Luhmann zur Einführung Hamburg 2001 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | Luhmann, N. | AU Kass 13 Communication/Luhmann: the three parts 1. Information 2. Message 3. Understanding now become components of a unit. Thesis: communication only comes about when the unity comes about. And that is an improbability! The components cannot be isolated at all! They are not building blocks or atoms or existing states, which one then assembles. AU Kass 13 Communication/Luhmann: there are two possible reasons to rewind it: Misunderstandings and "No". Luhmann: Thesis: we see a connection between the autopoiesis (the openness of the "going-on-and-on") and the non-linearity of the connection (there is not only one way, as with Habermas). Question: does it not have to come to an equal distribution of "yes" and "no"? Or why is there more "yes" than "no" at all? And is that true at all? One possibility is to say that communication logically starts with understanding and not with communicating! And that the communicator always anticipates whether he will be understood, whether what he says is pleasant or unpleasant, and so on. Then the understanding is always already anticipated in a circular way! One tries to estimate success beforehand. Luhmann thesis: I believe that this anticipation is decisive for the fact that it does not constantly come to rejections. Anticipatory self-control. This can also include focusing communication on a conflict. "No" does not end communication - that could only be a misunderstanding. |
|
| Self-Organization | Luhmann, N. | AU Cass 5 Self-Organisation / autopoiesis / Luhmann: to be seen from the thesis of the operational unity. Instead of a reverse declaration order of unity through self-organization, how it was proposed in the history of theory. |
|
| Life | Maturana, H. | Luhmann AU Kass 6 System / Maturana: a system (life) is possible as long as the autopoiesis works. |
|
| |||