Someone recently asked me, "Well, finally ... what is epistemology?"
was then that I said "Well, try to write something about that" and here , I am ... trying it, write ...
When we were at school and talk about paradigms, we referred a set of assumptions and beliefs about life and about people , which supports all forms of living, thinking and interacting with others ... In general, there is talk of paradigms when it comes to companies or certain currents of thought that are central to human groups with common goals and we can also "grouped and categorized (by example, "scientists"). However, accepting the idea that these groups of people construct their beliefs and that these beliefs can penetrate even the limits of their group operator, it also implies accepting the idea that every time we hear a certain assumption about something, we are hearing the result of a construction, not matter how old or how shared, is a building ....
"Ya, ya ... it just already knew .... What about epistemology? "
Epistemology is a discipline that first accepts this premise:" Everything that is said by someone and that someone speaks, and then the epistemology accepts the premise that the beliefs that make up a paradigm tend to cluster and generate logical consistency, though, are not completely consistent.
When one accepts the idea of logical consistency, epistemology then worry about ordering the premises of a paradigm, and distinguish levels of "importance" between them to determine what assumptions are which dictate the logic to follow. Also, is concerned that within each paradigm is to determine the validity criteria with which to accept or reject a new premise. Re latter is important because we are not talking about "true" if not of "valid." Again, this distinction tells us not discuss about the facts, but his reading of the assumptions built from these events and how these assumptions are mutually consistent.
The grace to accept these ideas is that necessarily invites us to accept others who are in tune, and also are consistent enough with that of "systemic" (AU n when the epistemology is prior in the history of human speech, for centuries), such as the idea that we do not know if "reality" is something that exists or not, because we have no access to things or events in a unique way. That's what makes epistemology, in the background says "we are not going to discuss whether this knowledge and these premises are true or not, we will discuss is whether they are valid or not, within the paradigm under which they are generated, ie, how consistent are the central ideas of the paradigm.
Let's see if I can set an example ...
When I say "After that you take this tea, you'll feel better, I'm saying some things that I believe:
- I believe that you exist
- I think there
tea- ; Creo que te sientes mal
- Creo que ese “sentirte mal” no durará para siempre, que puede mejorar
- Creo que el té tiene que ver con tu malestar, ya sea porque tu malestar se relaciona con la ausencia del té o de algo que hay en el té; or because even when there has been an absence of tea that caused you discomfort, something in the tea will help to improve your status
- I think the tea is something that is taken and that you are able to do
- ; I think the effect Tea is something positive that will be noticed once you take it and not before, etc..
So if these premises are my paradigm and then someone comes and says, "As expected, I took the tea and felt a horrible pain," then you are integrating new information to me and I must review my paradigm before deciding whether the information will be possible to incorporate or not ... what should I check is if that information can be consistent with the premises of my paradigm. Following the example, this person cree que el té genera dolor, y yo creo que el té contribuye a mejorar el malestar de las personas, para poder aceptar su información como válida, debo ver las flexibilidades de mi paradigma, es decir, preguntarme dónde puede calzar con lógica esta información, puedo por ejemplo:
- Creer que el té puede tanto generar dolor como generar bienestar
- believe that human bodies are different
- believe that one can see that human organisms different
- believe that that particular person does not receive the benefits of tea, and you probably have a condition No special minority for not
can - as that person believe that there are many other
- believe that this person refers to another substance, but that is confusing with the tea, etc.
But I can also assume that the information that this person gives me has no place in my paradigm, so I do not accept as valid and does not alter my original premises (for example, "tea helps improve the status of persons").
This just made, from the sentence "After you take this area, you'll feel better" is what the epistemology with the premises of the paradigms and forms of knowledge in general, including religion, science and dogma more. Of course, you can do because it accepts the idea that any of these ways of knowing accurately reflect a single reality, whether because such a thing does not exist or because even if there is we can not know.
And that, what horns has to do with systemic therapy?
If we accept that as long as humans we construct beliefs, and grouped us to live according to those beliefs, do we think that science, religion and likewise, individuals and families, then, from the therapy, try to find these personal paradigms and family, try to know their level of consistency, to know how it is that what today is a difficulty, problem or blockage in these people consulting, relates to this paradigm, and of course, try to understand the flexibilities offered by this paradigm to introduce informacióny thereby offering the possibility of building new premises, relating to solve this problem or alleviate the pain.
For there, so it fits well and storytelling ... because apparently believe that "life is story, and stories, short stories are"
A count! So
0 comments:
Post a Comment