Context: There is still no detailed defence of Goodman’s starmaking constructivism against the objection Boghossian presented in his 2006 book, Fear of Knowledge. Problem: I defend Goodman’s constructivism against the problem of stuff raised by Boghossian, that is, that constructivism requires unconstructed stuff and thus cannot explain all features in the world. Method: I argue that there is a way out for constructivists when they face the problem of stuff. Constructivists can choose to accept a constructivist-friendly worldview and the problem of stuff does not hold in this worldview. Goodman already provides hints for such a worldview in his works. I articulate the worldview in detail and argue that it does not have obvious faults. Results: I show that starmaking constructivism does not have the problem of stuff at least under a certain tenable worldview. Implications: The constructivist-friendly worldview and related novel ideas could be used to defend starmaking constructivism against other objections in Boghossian’s book and is helpful in answering other philosophical questions such as the mind-matter problem and modality. Constructivist content: This article may contribute to reviving Goodman’s starmaking constructivism.

Key words: Anti-foundationalism, bundle theory, constructivism, phenomenalism.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I consider two problems arising in the context of Goodmanian constructivism as discussed by Bin Liu: the question of solipsism and the status of immaterial minds.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I present alternative responses to those Liu offers to two challenges to Nelson Goodman’s constructivist thesis: A. it is not possible for everything to be constructed and B. the thesis cannot account for the existence of things prior to their being constructed.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I provide a brief account of key elements in Nelson Goodman’s starmaking constructivist philosophy and comment on Bin Liu’s defense of Goodman in the context of contemporary constructivist philosophy.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I am concerned with questions about the concept of “linguistic experiences.” I would like to gain more insight into how “understanding propositional content” works, given that linguistic acts are interpreted as providing us with experiences.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: Bin Liu defends a theory he calls “starmaking constructivism,” according to which all features of the world are constructed by us. I will first show that the general way Liu defends and argues for constructivism is strongly reminiscent of the tradition of inductive metaphysics, a tradition that emerged in the mid- and late 19th century and the early 20th century in Germany. I will then highlight an argument from this tradition against phenomenalism and for realism. Then I will argue that this argument is at least in part an objection that also applies to starmaking constructivism, thereby shifting the burden of arguing back to the constructivist’s side.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I first problematize the conditions under which the “problem of stuff” can function as a genuine concern for a constructivist ontology. These conditions have to do with the Cartesian ideal of “radical beginning” and the absolute foundation of knowledge, which was transplanted to contemporary (analytic) ontology/metaphysics through its concentration on language. Finally, I argue that the “problem of stuff” is not an urgent problem.

Abstract: The constructivist worldview divides all features in the world into purported external properties and the totality of experience and argues that they are all constructed. The constructivist worldview can also answer the problem of time and explain how the construction chain comes from nothing. Compared with the realist worldview, the constructivist worldview has multiple advantages.

This paper has two main aims. I first argue that ontological nihilism, that is, the view that there are no things is a consistent position. Second, I discuss an argument for the view that nihilism is not just possible but actually true, that is that there actually are no things (This paper is not meant as an addition to the considerable literature on the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Of course, any attempt to answer this question would have to presuppose the conclusion of the first section, that is, that nihilism is a consistent position. But if the argument in the second section goes through the question we would then have to answer is not why there is something rather than nothing, but why there is nothing rather than something). My argument is based on two main premisses, eliminativism (‘only the fundamental exists’) and non-foundationalism (‘it’s dependence all the way down’) which jointly entail ontological nihilism. I conclude with some reflections on the consequences of the nihilist position for the project of constructing a fundamental metaphysical theory.

Key words: ontology, nihilism, eliminativism, foundationalism, fundamentality, metaphysical dependence.

In order to adequately understand the foundations of human social interaction, we need to provide an explanation of our specific mode of living based on linguistic activity and the cultural practices with which it is interwoven. To this end, we need to make explicit the constitutive conditions for the emergence of the phenomena which relate to language and joint activity starting from their operational-relational matrix. The approach presented here challenges the inadequacy of mentalist models to explain the relation between language and interaction. Recent empirical studies concerning joint attention and language acquisition have led scholars such as Tomasello et al. (2005) to postulate the existence of a universal human “sociocognitive infrastructure” that drives joint social activities and is biologically inherited. This infrastructure would include the skill of precocious intention-reading, and is meant to explain human linguistic development and cultural learning. However, the cognitivist and functionalist assumptions on which this model relies have resulted in controversial hypotheses (i.e., intention-reading as the ontogenetic precursor of language) which take a contentious conception of mind and language for granted. By challenging this model, I will show that we should instead turn ourselves towards a constitutive explanation of language within a “bio-logical” understanding of interactivity. This is possible only by abandoning the cognitivist conception of organism and traditional views of language. An epistemological shift must therefore be proposed, based on embodied, enactive and distributed approaches, and on Maturana’s work in particular. The notions of languaging and observing that will be discussed in this article will allow for a bio-logically grounded, theoretically parsimonious alternative to mentalist and spectatorial approaches, and will guide us towards a wider understanding of our sociocultural mode of living.