To be radical, an empiricism must neither admit into its constructions any element that is not directly experienced, nor exclude from them any element that is directly experienced.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
He who does not see things in their depth should not call himself a radical.
Radical simply means 'grasping things at the root.'
Experience seems to most of us to lead to conclusions, but empiricism has sworn never to draw them.
Radical constructivism, thus, is radical because it breaks with convention and develops a theory of knowledge in which knowledge does not reflect an 'objective' ontological reality.
Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing. In short, radicals must have a degree of control over the flow of events.
What I do isn't radical. It's just distinct in small ways.
I wouldn't call it radical; I would call it enthusiasm for progress.
I don't consider myself to be that radical a thinker.
I'm a radical, and I always have been.
I'm not a politically radical person. In fact, I'm much more interested in being radical aesthetically.
No opposing quotes found.