World-for-us epistemology, Kantianism, constructivism and metaphysical realism

Kant’s distinction between the object-for-us and the object-in-itself is a distinction that isn’t justified as a absolute distinction. That is to say, it isn't justified as a distinction that applies to how the world is in itself. Precisely because on my world-for-us epistemology the world-in-itself is epistemically forever hidden to us, said distinction is only justified as a distinction for us and thus as a distinction within the-world-for-us. So world-for-us epistemology isn't Kantianism.

Constructivists more broadly understood though claim that what we refer to as the world is a human construction of either mind or language or power or even some other medium. World-for-us epistemology isn't constructivism either. In fact, it's fundamentally different from constructivism. Constructivists claim to know that the-world-for-us is a human construction. But how do they know the absolute nature of the-world-for-us? How do they step outside the-world-for-us? That’s for us human beings simply impossible.

The problem for constructivists is not that they have to admit that their own constructivsim is also merely a construction. For they are actually more than happy to admit that. The problem for constructivists is that it’s epistemically unjustified to claim that everything is a construction in the first place. It's the world-for-us epistemologist and not the constructivist that properly withholds judgement. We cannot justify any claim about the 'in itself' of the-world-for-us since we cannot transcend our human condition. Thus for us an absolute stance is impossible. We remain always inescapably within the 'for us'.

So claiming that the 'for us' is a construction, as constructivists do, is simply bad dogmatic metaphysics. For all we know, the 'for us' could indeed be a construction. But also, for all we know, the 'for us' could be the absolute. We will never know. Therefore we do all our projects, even metaphysics, forever and solely within the-word-for-us, while the ontology of the 'for us' remains for us inevitably inaccessible.

Kantians who consider their distinction between the object-for-us and the object-in-itself as an absolute distinction, metaphysical realists who claim that what we call the world coincides with the world as it is in itself, and constructivists who claim that what we call the world is a human construction, are in fact all equally examples of bad dogmatic metaphysics. For all unjustifiably claim to know the inaccessible absolute nature of the world as it is for us.