The Constructivist Preference
Published on JanĀ 18, 2017 (updated JunĀ 6, 2021), filed under philosophy (feed). (Share this on Mastodon orĀ Bluesky?)
When we are presented with conflicting beliefs and ideas, which ones are we to support or assume? That question, in our age of scientism, is usually answered with āthose that are true,ā or āthose that are more realistic,ā irrespective of how these terms may be defined.
For anything that cannot be answered with a high degree of certainty I wish to propose that itās more useful for us, and more advisable indeed, not to desperately look at truth or realism, but for what is more constructive or positive. Although one might label this genuine constructivism, positivism, or plain idealism, I like to call this the āconstructivist preference.ā
Applying the constructivist preference, which seems close to the pragmatist views of Charles Sanders Peirce and William James (they had suggested to judge the value of ideas in terms of their usefulness), means a careful monitoring of input to choose those statements that, unless there is no prima facie room for error, are more favorable. As thatās close to repeating what weāve established in the last paragraph, we should inspect examples:
Of āpeople are terribleā vs. āpeople are great,ā two statements asymmetric as much as unprovable, āpeople are greatā shouldāhere I prefer the normative routeābe preferred, no matter how many cases were brought forth that want people to be terrible.
Of āthings get betterā vs. āthings will stay the sameā (or get worse), more constructive is certainly the belief that things get better (and we remember Ćmile CouĆ© when he famously coined the affirmation, āevery day, in every way, Iām getting better and betterā).
Of ālife is difficultā vs. ālife is easy,ā no matter the frivolous triviality, the constructivist preference absolutely favors ālife is easy.ā Following the pragmatists (āwhat are the practical implications of accepting this as true?ā) we know why we prefer the latter.
What led me to this preference have been occasional conversations that contained mere opinion, dark opinion, and one or the other situation in which a participant would cling to something so hard to verify (scientifically: falsify), yet so negative, that one could not bear the damage such person mentally inflicted on themselves, that I longed for something to ground myself, and maybe convince the other: In matters of opinion, and beyond the glass thatās half full, letās prefer those views that are more constructive.
About Me
Iām Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and Iām a web developer, manager, and author. Iāve been working as a technical lead and engineering manager for companies youāve never heard of and companies you use every day, Iām an occasional contributor to web standards (like HTML, CSS, WCAG), and I write and review books for OāReilly and Frontend Dogma.
I love trying things, not only in web development and engineering management, but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my experiences and views. (I value you being critical, interpreting charitably, and giving feedback.)