Volume 8 · Number 2 · Pages 247–252
Non-dualism versus Conceptual Relativism

Peter Kügler

Download the full text in
PDF (401 kB) · EPUB (79 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: Although Josef Mitterer’s non-dualism has received increasing attention in recent years, it is still underrated by philosophers. It is an ambitious and unusual treatment of epistemological problems concerning truth and reality. Problem: Is non-dualism tenable? Is conceptual relativism tenable? Method: On the basis of a pragmatic semantics, Mitterer’s arguments against conceptual relativism are shown to be unjustified. Results: Non-dualism lacks a clear conception of semantics. Given the similarities to Robert Brandom’s account of truth, as well as Mitterer’s preoccupation with Wittgenstein, pragmatic semantics suggests itself for filling this gap. But then conceptual relativism seems to be the more attractive position. Implications: This paper is a critical survey of non-dualism and a defense of conceptual relativism, but it might also be a worthwhile reading for those interested in semantic issues such as the difference between Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Robert Brandom’s approaches to “meaning as use.” Constructivist content: Non-dualism is sometimes regarded as an alternative to realistic and constructivist positions in epistemology. This paper, however, defends conceptual relativism, which is a kind of realism that can also be seen as a kind of (non-radical) constructivism.

Key words: Language game, pragmatic semantics, realism, truth


Kügler P. (2013) Non-dualism versus conceptual relativism. Constructivist Foundations 8(2): 247–252. http://constructivist.info/8/2/247

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Hoffjann O. (2013) Public Relations: Between Omnipotence and Impotence
Maturana H. R. (2012) Reflections on My Collaboration with Francisco Varela
Dykstra Jr. D. (2010) What Can We Learn from the Misunderstandings of Radical Constructivism? Commentary on Slezak’s “Radical Constructivism: Epistemology, Education and Dynamite”
Vörös S. & Riegler A. (2017) A Plea for not Watering Down the Unseemly: Reconsidering Francisco Varela’s Contribution to Science
Weber S. (2008) The Object of Description is the Description of the Object So Far: Non-dualism and Beyond


Brandom R. B. (1994) Making it explicit. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Davidson D. (1974) On the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47: 5–20. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (1995) Radical constructivism. Falmer Press, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. von (2001) The radical constructivist view of science. Foundations of Science 6(1): 31–43. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/pub/fos/pdf/glasersfeld.pdf
Grover D. L., Camp J. L. Jr. & Belnap N. D. Jr. (1975) A prosentential theory of truth. Philosophical Studies 27(2): 73–125. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
James W. (1909) A pluralistic universe. Longmans, Green & Co., New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lycan W. G. (2008) Philosophy of language. Routledge, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mitterer J. (2011) Das Jenseits der Philosophie. Wider das dualistische Erkenntnisprinzip [The beyond of philosophy: Against the dualistic principle of cognition]. Velbrück, Weilerswist. Originally published in 1992 by Passagen, Vienna. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Putnam H. (1987) The many faces of realism. Open Court, La Salle IL. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Quine W. V. (1968) Ontological relativity. The Journal of Philosophy 65(7): 185–212. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Testa I. (2003) Hegelian pragmatism and social emancipation: An interview with Robert Brandom. Constellations 10(4): 554–570. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wanderer J. (2008) Robert Brandom. Acumen, Stocksfield. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wittgenstein L. (1958) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.