From: Carlos Mario Muņoz Suārez <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: on escepticism (the correct)
Dr. Glazerfeld, thanks you for your answer, is more
the problem that I view in this point is: the radical
constructivism not might be confussed with (radical)
idealism. In my point of view the radical
should search any explanation to the
genesis of the
metaphisical reality's construction.
On the other hand, I believe that the escepticals
arguments can not be definitives, given thath the
esceptic's arguments will be autocontradictorious.
konowledge of my unknowledge of the reality, is
epistemological conclusion from esceptical
eccordance with the cartesio's arguments
arguments) makes whit the esceptics; for
esceptical conclusion and (radical)
conclusion is necessary to suspend
the judment, therefore
is configured a dogmatic
argument (migth say the esceptic).
In this way, the radical constructivism needs explain
construction of metafisical reality
erguments to favor of the metaphisical
not to fall in 1) a
(radical) idealism or 2) a
dogmatic conclusion. ŋWhat do
Note: any of this argument will be articulateds on the
book that I'm writing...I know thath you con help in
construction of estructur of any arguments, and
thank Dr. Glacerfeld
Pst.: Again, sorry for my english.
Att.: Carlos M. Muņoz S.
Universidad del Valle (Colombia)