Please…Not Another Constructivist Theory
How many ‘isms’ does it take to say we construct reality?
Dear Thinkers,
This month, I have had the rare opportunity to enjoy the luxury of putting my feet up and just reading books. I have done a lot of reading. And while that has come at the expense of a mountain of overdue work awaiting my desk, I have been more than eager to put it away for another day. Most of my reading has been philosophical. And it brought certain issues and discomforts that I have had with the field for years into the foray.
What is Philosophy? At its best, philosophy aspires to peel back the veil and show us not just what is but what must be. At its worst however, it descends into a linguistic ouroboros, eating its own tail and going in circles to express the same essential insight. How many isms do you think it takes to articulate the rather simple notion that we construct reality?
Consider the likes of Radical Constructivism, Metaphysical Anti-Realism, and Skeptical Epistemologies. Each term comes with its own intellectual grandeur, promising the herald of a new philosophical epoch. Yet, when the smoke clears, what do we find? Just another rephrasing of the idea that our minds shape the world. A truth that, depending on one’s mood, is either elegantly self-evident or tediously belabored.
Now, as a philosopher myself, I am most definitely complicit in the machinery of conceptual reinvention. I understand the allure of the ism. Each new term promises to encapsulate a nuance overlooked by its predecessors. And sometimes, indeed, it delivers. But more often, it feels like a performance. It's like the Olympic games. The venue changes with every iteration, and yet, the games remain the same.
I am not trying to dismiss the value of nuance. I am questioning its tenuous proliferation. Are we truly refining our grasp of reality, or just playing an elaborate game of terminological one-upmanship? Is our pursuit of intellectual precision reaching a point where it obscures rather than illuminates?
This month, I waded into the swamp of isms with equal parts curiosity and irreverence. I feel that philosophy, today, seems incapable of letting a single idea rest without dressing it up in ever more elaborate theoretical garb. After all, what could be more philosophical than taking a good idea and beating it to death with style?
Our Obsession with Jargon
The isms in philosophy multiply like hydra heads. Spend a decent amount of time researching any philosophical concept and you will find that to be the case.
Take the constructivist jargon for instance. Each term claims to be indispensable, carving out its niche in the pantheon of thought. And what are they all trying to say? The same thing. Reality, as we know it, is not discovered but constructed.
Radical Constructivism boldly declares that reality is unknowable in itself, i.e., what we perceive is merely a mental construct. Basically, that’s just some good old repackaged Kant.
Metaphysical Anti-Realism denies the existence of any objective reality independent of human minds. You can think of it as a rebellious cousin of Constructivism, it prefers to challenge the notion of reality itself, dismantling the idea of an external “out there.”
And then there’s Idealism, which insists that reality is fundamentally mental. In other words, “Everything’s in your head,” but with Hegelian grandeur.
Skeptical Epistemologies take a more cautious route, interrogating not just what we know, but the very process of knowing. Basically second guessing your own shadow.
Ontological Constructivism argues that the categories of being themselves are human-made. It’s an audacious claim, suggesting that even existence is an artifact of our conceptual schemes. In other words, reality is IKEA furniture, assembled piece by piece with your conceptual schemes.
And, of course, there is Subjectivism, unapologetically asserting that reality is whatever the individual perceives it to be. Reality, in this view, is less a shared experience and more a highly personalised playlist.
Now, each of these terms has its merits. They illuminate facets of the constructivist worldview, emphasising different dimensions, i.e., ontology, epistemology, metaphysics. But does this endless proliferation of terms enhance our understanding?
Philosophy is a discipline that thrives on distinctions. To name is to carve reality at its joints. But at what point does it turn into an arms race of terminological invention?
Philosophy, like science, is obsessed with precision. When a term like "constructivism" becomes too broad, philosophers refine it, splitting hairs until "Radical Constructivism" emerges, followed by "Ontological Constructivism," each claiming to correct or deepen the original insight. In some cases, this refinement serves its purpose, highlighting distinctions that genuinely advance our understanding.
To secure a foothold in the philosophical canon, a thinker must do more than repeat old ideas. They have to brand their thoughts as fundamentally new. A new ism, no matter how minor the distinction, becomes a philosopher’s signature. Their ticket to intellectual immortality. This relentless push for novelty and distinction takes precedence over the pursuit of true understanding.
And also, let us not underestimate the role of ego. A new term is a monument to its creator. To name an ism is to stake a claim, to say, “I was here.” This results in a philosophical Tower of Babel, where each thinker insists on speaking their own language, while adding nothing distinctive or new.
Illumination or Obfuscation?
I always considered the refinement of terminology to be an act of illumination with each ism reflecting a deliberate attempt to grapple with a specific facet of a philosophical view, teasing apart layers of meaning that might otherwise collapse into vagueness. But there is a fine line between refinement and redundancy. There is no doubt in my mind that philosophy, today, has turned into something akin to marvel movies. They will keep making a few every year, same concept, same jokes, same multiverse nonsense, just repackaged with a new title or a distinct superpower.
New terms are no longer adding clarity, they are adding clutter. When every thinker feels compelled to coin their own ism, the result is less a coherent dialogue and more a cacophony of voices, each insisting on its own terminology, each pulling the discourse in subtly different directions.
Take, for example, Metaphysical Anti-Realism and Ontological Constructivism. At their core, both reject the idea of an independent, objective reality. Yet, rather than building on each other’s insights, they often operate as competing frameworks, each vying for intellectual dominance. The result is a fragmentation of the philosophy, where the shared insight is buried beneath competing terminologies.
This comes at a cost. It makes philosophy less accessible, not only to outsiders but even to practitioners. It risks alienating philosophy from its original purpose, i.e., to help us understand the world and our place within it.
The greatest crime of all, is how this mindless proliferation of isms often obscures the shared truth they all orbit. By focusing so intensely on distinctions, we risk losing sight of the broader picture.
So, am I saying we should abandon nuance? Is this some neo-marxist take on how philosophical investigations should be conducted? No. This is not a call to abandon nuance. Philosophy thrives on precision, on the careful articulation of ideas. But precision without purpose is an empty exercise. If our terminological refinements do not bring us closer to understanding, if they do not help us see the world with greater clarity, then what are they for?
Perhaps, then, the task before us is not to multiply isms but to unify them. To find common ground among these fragmented frameworks and, in doing so, to reclaim philosophy’s original promise, i.e., not just to name things, but to illuminate the world.
Notes on Unification and Simplification
Finally, I would like to leave you with some notes on the merits of unification and simplification of philosophical queries and frameworks. The solution is not to reject distinctions but to wield them with purpose, to balance the precision of refinement with the clarity of synthesis.
Since constructivism is where the conversation began, let us use it as our testcase. What might such a unified philosophy of constructivism look like? For one, it would resist the temptation to name every conceptual wrinkle as though it were a revolutionary breakthrough. Instead, it would focus on integration, bringing together the insights of Radical Constructivism, Idealism, and their ilk into a coherent framework that highlights their common ground while respecting their differences.
We might begin by recognising that all constructivist philosophies share a foundational premise, that reality, as we know it, is shaped by human perception, thought, and culture. This shared insight can serve as the bedrock upon which more nuanced distinctions, i.e., epistemological, ontological, metaphysical, etc., are built. But these distinctions must be framed as complementary rather than competitive, as variations on a theme rather than rival claims to the truth.
This approach would also demand a more critical engagement with the language of philosophy itself. Philosophical terms, for all their precision, are tools, not ends in themselves. Their value lies in their ability to clarify, to reveal, to illuminate. When they cease to serve this purpose, when they become barriers to understanding rather than bridges, they must be set aside, no matter how elegantly constructed they may be.
Lastly, such a philosophical framework should whole-heartedly embrace humility. The temptation to invent new isms often stems from a desire for intellectual legacy, for a lasting imprint on the philosophical canon. If you are a philosopher, please understand that the true legacy of your philosophy lies not in the number of terms you coined, but in the depth of understanding you brought to the world. Remember that the ultimate goal of philosophy is not to multiply distinctions, but to deepen insight.
Perhaps it is time to descend from the tower of our personal ego and return to the ground, where philosophy began, not with isms, but with questions. After all, it is not the naming of reality that makes philosophy worthwhile. It is the pursuit of truth, no matter how elusive, that gives it meaning.
I am reminded of a sentiment often attributed to Pascal, “One cannot truly be a philosopher without first learning to laugh at philosophy.” There is wisdom in this. Your isms are not sacred truths but imperfect tools of a deeply human endeavour.