M. Esad Cetin

Constructivism enables a more comprehensive world of meaning in which knowledge and experience are constructed through relations and contexts. Its environmental and social dimension, in the ethical realm, functions in the formation of principles within individual decision-making processes and plays an influential role in the legitimation of actions. It is maintained that constructivism in ethics is directly related to the form of mathematical constructivism that individuals encounter in their educational experience. Accordingly, this study aims to discuss the similarities between constructivism in mathematics and in ethics, as well as the interaction between these fields. The approach in question, which proposes an epistemological method, emphasizes that knowledge is not a fixed propositional structure that is simply given, rather, it is a dynamic process that is continuously reconstructed through the principle-generating activity of “knowing-subject”. Thus constructivism, offers a transformative perspective in both epistemological and practical realms. This study argues that two disciplines follow similar intellectual trajectories in terms of their precepts, subjects and problems. This similarity reveals itself particularly at the methodological level and calls for a reconsideration of issues certainty, truth, and justification in both realms. In this way, the constructivist approach provides the conditions for establishing an interdisciplinary bridge. Hence the orthodoxical path is determined with the constructivist account that emerged as an alternative within the battle of moral realism and robust subjectivism. In the thoughts of Plato and Kant (1724 - 1804), especially the normative role of reason and the seeking for universal principles constitute the foundations of ethical constructivism. In accordance with that, moral values and moral facts are neither completely discovered nor entirely individual; instead, they are rational and construed entirely in the projection of normative procedures. In accordance with the fundaments in both areas, knowledge and meaning are not mere reflections of an external reality but reveals itself as a structure with the active participation of the human mind.

Basically this paper wishes to show that the “Case of Machiavelli” is a case which modern thought caused. Furthermore, if the relation between Enlightenment and Machiavellian thought were clearer, it must be admitted that both these two facts affect each other within circularity. Leo Strauss claims, Classical political Philosophy that is being pioneered by classics like Aristotle and Plato, bound with the political life. As a consequence, it can be said that there is a magnificent cleavage between classical and modern political philosophy. What is being meant by saying “political life”? The concept “Political life” indicates a phenomenon which includes something that provides to the humanbeing pleasure or displeasure. Ultimately, Machiavelli‟s main ideas and attitude at politics are gathering into the brief structure that contains to reject the traditional behaviours. But, the Machiavellian approachment to the Politics determines the measures of the science of politics instead of tradition of politics.

This paper focuses on the philosophical ground constituted between “Language” and “Logic”, which should be coined as “synthetic ways” because the synthesis of “Logic” and “Language” is “the science of Logic” as one of the synthetic ways of synthesis by the “mind”. When we look into the historical development of this synthesis process, we see very different synthetic opera-tions, compared with those which are in modern times and in terms of funda-mental dynamics. Thus, this article aims to show that the dynamic of “time” is in interaction with the dynamic of “motion” –so the dynamic of “changing”. It also aims to how that that the quality of the interaction between those dynam-ics is coming true because of the difference in understanding the category of “quantity” by the views of different philosophers. For instance, according to Aristotle, categories belong to being; but in Kant, categories belong to the mind that will perceive the being. Hence, this study aims to show the differ-ence in understanding the “being” and the one who perceives it from a different perspective.