Complex Causality Is Still Causality

[kellogg]

As always, I need a courage to upload my poor homework..

Corraggio, Ms. Mirror! (It's tough for ME too. I often think I don't really understand what my students are writing, and perhaps I don't. It's good that people write in Korean, because I think it means that others are more likely to read it, but it's a little hard for me to reply!)

Here's my homework. I DO need a talking with LSV about section 7 to do my homework. so please understand my poor digestion so far....T.T

I wasn't sure ANYBODY was reading my blogging. (I know that Jihyeon didn't!) I will try again when I have time (after class tomorrow night). Actually, the reading is going quite well, and we can take it a little easier next week. I think I want to have us ALL work on the SAME questions this time.

Existence: Vygotsky begins with a quotation about “empirical philosophy”. Does Vygotsky think empirical philosophy is a good thing or a bad thing? What about Piaget?

Vygotsky saw the empirical philosophy would be the practical psychology of learning. He thought the field of psychology of learning was an empirical battleground between historical materialism and ahistorical idealism.  

Battlegrounds are pretty messy places. (I am reminded of this by the news every week, because there is a lot of fighting going on in places where I used to live. There was a lot of fighting going on then, too!) You are CERTAINLY right about Vygotsky and historical materialism. Vygotsky was a historical materialist.

But I think I would say he was a HISTORICAL materialist and not just a historical MATERIALIST. His EARLY battle was with Russian behaviorism (Pavlov, Bekhterev, and his own boss, Kornilov). That's why he's always talking about Watson--Watson an AMERICAN behaviorist, and so it's safe to attack him!

Now, behaviorism is really materialist. VERY materialist. The problem is that it's a kind of BIOLOGICAL materialism and not a HISTORICAL or CULTURAL materialism.

In his struggle against behaviorism, Vygotsky is willing to get all kinds of help. So for example, he's ready to get help from all kinds of idealist psychologists, like James and Buhler and the Gestaltists. He's even willing to get help from idealist philosophers, like Hegel.

Now, this battle with Piaget is a little different. Piaget is NOT a behaviorist. He's a STRUCTURALIST. But structuralism is ALSO a kind of AHISTORICAL method. So in some ways the battle is the same!

One of the big problems we have in our department is LINKING theory and practice. It's partly MY fault; I like Vygotsky, and I like theory, and like Mr. Yun I'm a little shy and I don't really like to play games very much, even with real children. My students tend to be just the opposite (you can see Ms. Choe light up when we play games in class) but I am rather egocentric when I lecture.

But I know that it's not just my class. In thesis work, there is often a HUGE gap between the theoretical background part (which tends to be TOO GENERAL) and the actual study (which tends to be TOO SPECIFIC, particularly in 통합전공).

This bothers Vygotsky too. He thinks that data and philosophy go together...well, like speech and thinking! So he doesn't like it when Piaget says he is going to avoid philosophy and only talk about data. He doesn't actually think you CAN ignore philosophy and only talk about data, because ignoring philosophy is a particular kind of philosophy (and not a very good kind!)

As Claparède points out in the preface of Piaget’s book, Piaget wanted to be totally empiricist throughout his studies. He collected data from children like from snails and tried to focus on the data itself, and also tried to scientifically analyze it avoiding philosophical issues. Piaget wanted to stay in the field of psychology which refers science not philosophy.

(For me, this existence questions is also one of the most difficult one. It’s because of my poor background knowledge of philosophy. T.T)

Yes! The distinction I made between existence, essence, and explanation is mostly STRUCTURAL. And of course form follows function!

Essence: Who believes in causality? Vygotsky or Piaget?

Vygotsky believes in causality.

Exactly. Take a look at my answer to Superman!

Piaget thinks that the same primitives’ thinking appeared to the child’s thinking and this showed he is a genetic epistemologist.

Right! But it also shows how LITTLE he knows about hunting and gathering peoples! They are not at all like children; they are recognizably and obviously adult in their attitude towards reality, even if their understanding of it is not quite the same as ours.

He also says that many of our explanations of phenomena are non-causal in modern science like the child’s thinking.

Right.

 For example, he said, complex phenomena cannot usually be explained be a single necessary and sufficient cause.

Yes! But of course that doesn't mean that they cannot be explained causally. Climate and seasonal change are very complex phenomena, but we can explain them causally nevertheless.

However Vygotsky objects that in reality results have reasons and effects do have causes.

(I think Korean translation of 2-7-1)-Ⅶ is a little confusing,”비고츠키는 현실에서 결과들은 이유들을 가진다는 것에 그리고 효과들은 원인들을 가진다는 것에 이의를 제기한다.” I thought Vygotsky objects to that results do have reasons.. when I read the first sentence at first. but I understand it as “ 비고츠키는 현실에서 결과들은 이유를 가지며, 효과들은 원인을 가진다고 이의를 제기한다)

Let's have a look at the English. 

7.7 Vygotsky objects that in reality results do have reasons, and effects do have causes.

You can see that YOUR understanding is right.

Explanation: Why does Vygotsky think that denying causality deprives “development” of any real content?

If we deny the causality, we substitute temporal sequence and functional dependence for the real causes of the developmental process.Namely we substitute observations and impressions of the developmental sequence for the causal process of development. This deprives development of any real content. The real historical transformation of development changed into an abstract formula which is reversible functionally.

Well, for one thing, functional dependence is REVERSIBLE! So for example, you can say that y = 2x or that x = 1/2y. But if a process is REVERSIBLE, is it really developmental? Doesn't development involve RESTRUCTURING?