Lines for Contemporary Constructivism to Revisit and Reintegrate the Ancient Sense of Continuity between Men and Nature

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 110)

Abstract

This paper is meant to focus the attention on some assumptions of contemporary constructivism which, in line with the groundbreaking thought of Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka’s phenomenology of life, allow to revisit and restore the ancient sense of continuity between natural macrocosm and anthropologic microcosm, which, in the scope of the unilaterally objectivist approach of modern epistemology, has fallen out of fashion. To this purpose this paper is essentially comprised of two parts: in the first the author means to outline the complex movement called “constructivism”, which finds its place between innatism and empirism and establishes itself as a “third way” where subject and object are no longer the absolute and pre-existing poles of a relation, but the outcomes of a construction taking place in the continuum between natural macrocosm and anthropologic microcosm. In the second part, starting from the above assumptions on contemporary constructivism, the author shall draw some significant lines of reflection to restore the continuity between logos and life phenomenology/ontopoiesis subject of this International Congress of Phenomenology.

Keywords

Material Shape Ancient Sense Assimilation Pattern Knowledge Construction Process Modern Epistemology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bichelmeyer, B.B. 2000. Interactivism: Change, sensory-emotional intelligence, and intentionality. In Being and learning, paper presented at annual meeting AREA, New Orleans, 24–28 April 2000.Google Scholar
  2. Bocchi, G., and M. Ceruti. 1981. Disordine e costruzione.Un’interpretazione epistemologica dell’opera di J. Piaget. Milan: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  3. Bruner, J. 1997. La cultura dell’educazione. Milan: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  4. Ceruti, M. (a cura di). 1992. Evoluzione e conoscenza. L’epistemologia genetica di Jean Piaget e le prospettive del costruttivismo. Milan: Lubrina.Google Scholar
  5. Ceruti, M., and G. Lo Verso. 1998. Epistemologia e psicoterapia. Milan: Cortina.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, M. 2004. Psicologia Culturale: una disciplina del passato e del futuro. Rome: Carlo Amore.Google Scholar
  7. Damiano, E. 2006. La «nuova alleanza». Temi problemi e prospettive della nuova ricerca didattica. Milan: La Scuola.Google Scholar
  8. Filograsso, N. (a cura di). 1994. Mente conoscenza educazione. Rome: Anicia.Google Scholar
  9. Foerster, H. von. 1990. Etique et cybernétique de second ordre. In Systèmes, éthique, perspectives en thérapie familiale, eds. Y. Rey and B. Prieur, 41–54. Paris: ESF.Google Scholar
  10. Gattico, E., and G. P. Storari. 2005. Costruttivismo e scienze della formazione. Milan: Unicopli.Google Scholar
  11. Gergen, K.J. 1991. The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Book.Google Scholar
  12. Giaconi, C. 2008. Le vie del costruttivismo. Rome: Armando.Google Scholar
  13. Glasersfeld, E. von. 1989. Introduzione al costruttivismo radicale. In La realtà inventata. Contributi al costruttivismo, ed. P. Watzlawick, (a cura di), 17–36. Milan: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  14. Glasersfeld, E. von. 1992. Aspetti del costruttivismo: Vico, Berkeley, Piaget. In Evoluzione e conoscenza. L’epistemologia genetica di J. Piaget e le prospettive del costruttivismo, ed. M. Ceruti (a cura di). Milan: Lubrina.Google Scholar
  15. Glasersfeld, E. von. 1998. Il costruttivismo radicale, Una via per apprendere e conoscere, Quaderni di Metodologia, 6, Società Stampa Sportiva, Rome.Google Scholar
  16. Guba, E.G. 1990. The alternative paradigm dialog. In The paradigm dialog, ed. ID., 17–27. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2000. Competing paradigmatic in qualitative research. In Handbook of qualitative research, eds. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Heron, J., and P. Reason. 1997. A participatory inquiry paradigm. In Qualitative inquiry, Vol. 3, 274–294.Google Scholar
  19. Leont’ev, A.N. 1977. Attività,coscienza e personalità. Florence: Giunti Barbera (ed. orig. Moskva 1975).Google Scholar
  20. Lincoln, Y.S. 1995. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretative research. In Qualitative inquiry, Vol. I, 257–289.Google Scholar
  21. Morf, A. 1994. Une épistémologie pour la didactique: spéculations autour d’un aménagement conceptual. In Revue des Sciences de l’education, Vol. 1, 29–40.Google Scholar
  22. Neymayer, R.A. 1993. An appraisal of constructivist psychotherapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Phillips, D.C. (a cura di). 2000. Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Chicago: NSSE.Google Scholar
  24. Piaget, J. 1967. Nature et méthodes de l’epistémologie. In Logique et connaissance scientifique, ed. J. Piaget (a cura di). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  25. Piaget, J. 1983. Biologia e conoscenza. Saggio sui rapporti tra le regolazioni organiche e i processi cognitivi. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
  26. Pojaghi, B. 2003. Contributi di psicologia sociale in contesti socio-educativi. Milan: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  27. Sempio, O.L. 1998. Vygotskij, Piaget, Bruner. Concezioni dello sviluppo. Milan: Cortina.Google Scholar
  28. Sexton, T.L. 1997. Constructivist thinking within the history of ideas: The challenge of a new paradigm. In Constructivist thinking in counselling practice, research, and training, eds. T.L. Sexton and B.L. Griffin, 3–18. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shayer, M. 2003. Not just Piaget; not just Vygotskij, and Certainly not Vygotskij as Alternative to Piaget. In Learning instruction, Vol. 40, 465–485.Google Scholar
  30. Steffe, L.P., and E.J. Gale. 1995. Constructivism in education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Varela, F.J., E. Thompson, and E. Rosch. 1993. L’inscription corporel de l’esprit. Sciences cognitives et experiénce humaine. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  32. Varisco, B.M. 2002. Costruttivismo socio-culturale. Genesi filosofiche, sviluppi psico-pedagogici, applicazioni didattiche. Rome: Carocci.Google Scholar
  33. Vygotskij, L.S. 1976. Pensiero e linguaggio. Florence: Giunti Barbera.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotskij, L.S. 1980. Il processo cognitivo. Torin: Boringhieri (ed. orig. Cambridge, 1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MacerataMacerataItaly

Personalised recommendations