Quote:
Originally Posted by bianca  1. Meaningless to them (b.), or to those who endorse behaviouristic theories. I know that you're thinking about a specific context, but this would be another (positivistic) approach. Behaviouristic approaches work with meaning, rather than with popularly true or false statements. It can be true in a mythical context, but meaningless anyway unless proved in praxis per se (in terms of conditioned associations).
2. Isn't this what I meant, as well? According to behaviourists, for a statement to have meaning it must be observed, or be either verified or falsified by empirical means. So, in this respect, to behaviourists, the statement "dragons exists" is neither true nor false, but meaningless. But to psychoanalysts this statement's meaningfulness or meaninglessness resides not in its being observable empirically, but introspectively via the works of the sub/conscious. |
Thanks for the clarification.
Quote:
|
Must there be an objective approach to subjectivity as the ultimate answer to meaning? Don't they (B. and P., structuralists and functionalists, and so on) approach meaning from different positions and complete each other, rather than being mutually excluding? Have behaviourists managed to explain memory as a scientific construct?
|
That would be nice, in theory. In practice, people quarrel, er,
debate.
I don't know what behaviourists make as memory. Perhaps they just assume it? (To become conditioned in the first place, Pawlow's Dog must remember the bell, doesn't it?)
Quote:
(Am I, by any chance, wandering away from the topic of this thread? )
|
Heh, if so you're not alone.
