Strict Constructionism vs. Loose Constructionism

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I generally believe in strict constructionism, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had some views which contradicted that philosophy.

You?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Personally I'm not a great fan of constructivist ideas. They assume a position of objectivity which we, of course, cannot ever actually have. Of course, many identities and social institutions clearly are 'constructed' in some way, but not in the way that construtivists seem to imagine. It's like a surreal paranoid approach to sociology.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Personally I'm not a great fan of constructivist ideas. They assume a position of objectivity which we, of course, cannot ever actually have. Of course, many identities and social institutions clearly are 'constructed' in some way, but not in the way that construtivists seem to imagine. It's like a surreal paranoid approach to sociology.

I think you have misunderstood the question... (Though I think I agree with your answer to the question you thought the OP was asking).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Personally I'm not a great fan of constructivist ideas. They assume a position of objectivity which we, of course, cannot ever actually have. Of course, many identities and social institutions clearly are 'constructed' in some way, but not in the way that construtivists seem to imagine. It's like a surreal paranoid approach to sociology.

I think you have misunderstood the question... (Though I think I agree with your answer to the question you thought the OP was asking).

Is choosing to misunderstand the same thing as genuine misunderstanding?

(The funny part is that it isn't even close to batsh*t as functionalism)

[Roemerista]

Its a funny thing Constructionism. (I assume you are referring to judicial philosophy) I would say that I am a strict Constructionist, but that does not imply that I am necessarily an originalist. Law is vague, and even the "text as is" will change over time. For words and phrases are not unchanging things, but rather imperfect vessels themselves. "All men are created equal," I think would be now universally read indicating mankind, not necessarily just the male gender, but the words themselves have not changed. Perhaps not the perfect example.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Personally I'm not a great fan of constructivist ideas. They assume a position of objectivity which we, of course, cannot ever actually have. Of course, many identities and social institutions clearly are 'constructed' in some way, but not in the way that construtivists seem to imagine. It's like a surreal paranoid approach to sociology.

I think you have misunderstood the question... (Though I think I agree with your answer to the question you thought the OP was asking).

Is choosing to misunderstand the same thing as genuine misunderstanding?

(The funny part is that it isn't even close to batsh*t as functionalism)

Yes... I was wondering that. But needed to make sure. Of course functionalism is a whole pile of dumb, we all know this.