Deconstructive pragmatism

Deconstructive Pragmatism (DP) is a neuroepistemic methodologic tool to understand the teleological perspectives, between neuroontologyand neuroepistemology (see map about, how reach DP, by the neuroepistemic and neuroontological way).
Basic principles
The relationship between pragmatism and deconstruction is more than philosophic, deeply teleological. In this case, joining philosophical worries as ontology and poststructuralist positions . Only for contextual framework, it is necessary make the difference between Constructivism (philosophically speaking) and deconstruction.
An easy way to approach this topic, is understand the pragmatic method to reach deconstruction, and face up basic problems of neuroepistemology; for instance, construct the bridge between knowledge of the man and essence of the man, concerning the self (neuroontology)
Constructing and Deconstructing
As some contemporary philosophers of mind and researchers on this topic afirm (specially Putnam, Northoff and Feinberg) one of the central points of this field, is building a gap between the essence of the self (in ontological way) and the epistemic form of the man when he is acquiring knowledge and transforming beliefs in judgements. Neuroontology (N.O)can be comprehended as the concern of neuroepistemology to appraise all the "Self" interactions.
This self, is a kind of operative consciousness, highly behavioural, cognitive and emotional; and having ability to modify its own environment.
DP, can study the self from several scopes, mainly from the functionalist perspective of Neuroepistemology, and can be useful helping to refute basic epistemic-ontological problems specially looking forward to the borderline between neuroontology and the neuroepistemic analysis of the self, addressed specifically to The Man-Machine Dilemma. In that way, man can make the "construct" of his knowledge, and "pragmatically deconstruct" that knowledge, because elemental rules of such functionalism.
Philosophical approaches
Some approximations to the term (DP), in strict philosophical-epistemic sense, comes from Wittgensteinian approaches worked by Chantal Mouffe, and other deconstructivist insights relating Jacques Derrida and Simon Critchley based on Emmanuel Levinas, too.
History
Pragmatism has theoretic basis on classic philosophers as Peirce, James, Dewey, and contemporary as Sellars or Quine among others, even Sydney Hook, Habermas or Rorty creating concepts as neopragmatism.
Early antecedents of teleology can be excerpted from classic Greek philosophy (specially on metaphysics), with thoughtful writings by Aristotle, and by Plato in his Phaedo dialogue, arguing the relationship among teleology and physical phenomena. Then, Kant wrote critical essays rationalizing teleology.
Finally and approaching functionalist insights concerning the , experts in cybernetics as Wiener, Rosenblueth and Bigelow, started the discussion on this topic, as an interesting advance on DP.
The term of deconstruction, likely was adapted by Derrida from the German idea of Destruktion early handled by Martin Heidegger, referring this word as a process to successful examine notions and categories commonly ascribed on a defined notion, and all the background behind those concepts.
In strict terms, deconstruction was early related to binary oppositions making semiotic constructs on diverse meanings and epistemic values, and in the last years of 1960´s commonly was linked with Theory of Signs, specifically scrutinizing the notion of différance by semiotic insights.
The above antecedents are clearly explaining, the requirement for scrutinizing the ontological problem of the self, facing up its teleological perspectives, recurring to DP.
Controversies on Deconstructivism
As this discipline became increasingly well-known, there was a reaction to it by researchers on all the fields where deconstructivism, had setting opinions. Concerning religion, Derrida's statements on diverse notions as undeconstructibility were relating particularly the concepts of justice and law, because in his terms, deconstruction is amid law and justice. Despite the fact of justice is indeterminate and impossible, the law is relevant for elaborating constructs of the present possible concerning human condition . That is, for Derrida, law is possible whilst justice is unattainable, and this is a principle where undeconstructibility becomes analytical tool.
Instead, as Joseph O`Leary confirm about the form to refute deconstructivism; he pointed up that Robert Magliola, specialist in deconstruction and inspecting Derrida from Buddhist viewpoint, described in his book some tips as Derridean tactics work: These items include defiant footnotes, ambiguous quoting and statements supporting contradictions in his dissertations concerning beliefs. e.g., The french term différance, many times quoted in his writings.
In other scenario, deconstruction is closely linked to poststructuralism . In this scope, Derrida was cathegoric arguing against poststructuralism; for instance some philosophers as Manfred Frank, prefere to define "Neostructuralism" referring Derrida's deconstructive analysis. Nonetheless, from such post-structuralist perspectives, the main application like analytical challenge is by deconstructing knowledge through assumptions on diverse meanings and concepts This kind of deconstruction put in plain words how a primate becomes astronaut, how awareness becomes beliefs and how a concept can become sign or viceversa
Pragmatic perspectives
In the extent that we move, the scope of DP will become unquestionably strengthened pursuing the advent of new courses in neuroepistemology. Social cognition unavoidably is receiving anytime neurotechnological bombarding, like molecular neurobiology and genetics, neuroimaging protocols; the dynamics of trans-synaptic functionality, and the revolutionary connectionist and computational models (as the TNE). The optimal and methodological application of DP, will be useful to study the teleological operativeness of the self, even looking for amplification of its knowledge exploring the quandaries on consciential features, crossing the borderline between Basic States (BSoC) and Amplified States of Consciousness (ASC).
The pragmatic integration of specific epistemic qualities, through the potential spectrum of these mechanisms to understand the brain, will reasonably be an awe-inspiring subject, where students interested in this topic will need of DP, for understanding the evolution of the self, neuroepistemically speaking.
Who am I, phenotypically speaking.
One of the interesting points of DP, is undoubtedly the analysis of the man, his hopes and desires, directed to their phenotypic insights:
In this way, (DP) will be able to display the whole tooling to understand, how the consciential self can face up technological challenges, considering neural networks of self and the machine dilemma.
Deconstructive pragmatism on neuroepistemology, deals with the crude analysis of deep roots on analytic epistemology and neuroontology. Jurgen Habermas is emphatic categorizing that the doors of genetics are open to rescue classical conceptions on metaphysical theses, pointing up toward revolutionary post-metaphysics answers, pondering ethical and moral values, and searching a liberal eugenesia facing up the philosophic future of the natural free-will on human condition, and its always changing morality.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu