Minding discourses. Responsibility and the non‐dualising mode of spea...

There are common hostile attitudes towards constructivist, relativist, or so‐called non‐dualistic positions which offer an alternative to truth. In one type of accuses there is a bad scenario sketched out: If truth is let go, everything is allowed and nothing matters anymore. Facts turn absurdly out to be fiction and everyone might just do and say what she or he likes. So, constructivism, relativism, and non‐dualism cause scientific chaos and demotivate all good intentions in scientific engagement: Why should one care to interpret any material precisely or develop and defend opinions with arguments, if – on the long run – nothing is true or more relevant than any crude phantasy?

Instead of arguing against this refusal, I want to anticipate it and offer possible answers to the questions: What motivates to philosophise from a position that does not aim at finding truth, and why does this not result in chaos?