Is Reality a Social Construction ?

I'm always open to new ideas - even as a atheist. It's just that nothing in my world proves anything close to a man's definition of any god. I can therefore say to myself, there is no god. I will not create something out of nothing - in my world of perception. I also don't know that there are other human-like creatures in another galaxy. Since my world can't prove such as of now, I say there are no other human-like creatures in another galaxy - today. When proven different, I will/may change my mind.

Very weird way of handling this, ci.

Seems to me it would make more sense to simply say you do not know if there are any other human-like creatures in another galaxy.

But to each his own!

Not too wierd, Frank. The idea that there may be human-like creatures in another galaxy is a concept created by humans - similar to the concept of creating gods. I just don't buy it - now. I have the luxury of waiting to be proved wrong. Until then, it's "no" in my world. Even scientists make mistakes. They also have the luxury to wait until proven wrong.

But the fact remains that either a) there are no other human-like creatures in the universe or b) there are other human-like creatures out there.

I do not know which is the case.

You want to assert that there are no human-like creatures when in fact, the only thing you can logically and reasonable say is that you do not know if there are or not.

Since you made the transition to gods -- the fact of the matter is that either a) there is a God (are Gods) or b) there are no gods.

Certainly a person can choose one of those sides -- but considering the evidence available, it simply is more logical and reasonable to say that you do not know which it is.

I realize you are defending your atheism here -- so go for it.

I'm just killing some time.

JLN

Point partially taken, but I stand by the rule that all "data" is gathered with respect to some working hypothesis. If we don't like aspects of the working hythothesis in question (in this case "social") we can take steps to amend it by attempting to explain its lack of viability and proposing an alternative. But to state its "not X" and maybe "nobody can ever know what it is", tends to be vacuous.

truth
Gentlefolks, I apologize for appearing to confound axioms with tautologies. I did so on paper but not in my mind.

C.I., I agree: I am an atheist regarding the totally meaningless and unfalsifiable notion of God, but I am an agnostic regarding the possiblity of life on other planets. The former issue is not resolvable, the latter is, at least in principle.

Fresco, I agree with your first sentence completely. No research looks for "data" randomly without some kind of orientating research question or hypothesis. Although, sometimes sociological or anthropological ethnographers may keep their options open, finalizing their research question AFTER some exposure to the "field." I know of researchers who have adjusted their questions and hypotheses (i.e., tentative answers) to on-going findings in the field. As data comes in that contradicts or otherwise challenges their hypotheses, they sometimes openly/admittedly (as a research method) adjust or expand their hypotheses to accomodate them--doing research in a procrustian bed, as it were. This might be considered unthinkable in the laboratory sciences.

Re: Is Reality a Social Construction ?
fresco:

<<<Thesis:

The contents of "thought" are mediated by "language" - a socially transmitted set of categories. These categories are reified by social consensus. As far as "science" is concerned the categories remain relatively stable and uncontroversial within particular historical paradigms. Scientific usage of a culture free metalanguage (mathematics) reinforces the concept of "external reality" but this ignores the social origins of directive hypotheses. All non-scientific realms are more obviously reflections of our evolutionary dispositions to interact in certain ways and to form social hierarchies or pecking orders>>>.


I agree: human "reality" is, in many, many profound ways, a social construct.

Think, for example, how a "sense of identity" unfolds out in the real world:

We are all of us "thrown" into a circumstantial stew at birth, the ingredients of which we had absolutely no choice regarding. For example: our historical era, our ethnological/cultural parameters, our social and religious institutions, our political economy, the demographic variables of our family and community, our gender and race and ethnicity, our biological and psychological predispositions, our congenital health---physical and mental propensities [or lack thereof]. Et cetera et cetera.

Then for the first 10 to 12 years of our lives we are profoundly indoctrinated to view the world around us just as we were taught to. That is why a child being raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank will probably grow to view the world around her quite at odds from a child raised in a wealthy orthodox Jewish family in Tel Aviv. That is why a kid brought up in a community of left wing artists in Boston, Massachusettes will no doubt tend to see the world very differently from a child raised in by a claque of KKK fanatics in rural Mississippi. Most people, in fact, will literally go to the grave barely cognizant of how all this works; and very, very few will put more than a small dent in Who I Am.

So, I agree completely that, say, how one comes to view the existence of God will, in so many enormoulsy influential ways, be merely a manifestation of their particular upbringing.

Thus the key question for philosophy is this: once we have factored acculturation into our analysis what can we then conclude about the nature of religion in human interactions? Are there or are there not objective assumptions that can be proffered? If so, what are they?

RP

RP

Yes ..the transcendent issue being can there ever be "objectivity" in any matter! Some writers (e.g. Krishnamurti) make a concerted attempt to remove acculturation, whereas others (e.g. Capra) go even further and reject an anthropocentic analysis entirely. It is worth noting that both of these leave "spirituality" intact but "religion" in pieces.

Obviously much has already been discussed on these matters in this forum but I would advise you that you can expect little general understanding to be shown of Wittgenstein's language games, or the related Sapir Whorf hypothesis (except for notable exceptions).

I look forward to reading your posts.

Regards fresco.

Fresco:

<<<Yes ..the transcendent issue being can there ever be "objectivity" in any matter! Some writers (e.g. Krishnamurti) make a concerted attempt to remove acculturation, whereas others (e.g. Capra) go even further and reject an anthropocentic analysis entirely. It is worth noting that both of these leave "spirituality" intact but "religion" in pieces>>>



Objectivity is very tricky, indeed. And that is because whatever we think we know is always encompassed in something we do not or cannot know. It's like that gag Christmas gift where you open one box and find another box inside it...and another box inside that one etc. Only it is in reverse. The "realities" get bigger and bigger...and stranger and stranger.

For example, suppose you were pondering whether abortion is immoral. You start to think about that and it gets you thinking about human interaction in general. And that gets you thinking about human culture. And that gets you thinking about human history. And that gets you thinking about human nature. And that gets you thinking about the evolution of the species. And that gets you thinking about the evolution of life. And that gets you thinking the evolution of planet earth. And get gets you thinking about the evolution of the solar system and the galaxy and the universe. Then things REALLY start to get weird. You start pondering things like 1] why does anything exists at all? 2] is existence infinite? 3] was it, instead, created? 4] if created by whom or what---out of what? 5] out of nothing at all? 6] what is nothing at all? 7] is there a Purpose "behind" existence?

Suddenly it begins to dawn on you: how in the world can you realistically decide whether killling a human fetus is right or wrong unless you can truly understand all the larger circumstantial contexts a question like that is embedded in. Then after you admit you can't you are still stuck with acknowledging that doesn't make the moral quandary go away, does it?

Most folks, of course, don't like admitting this at all. Most folks prefer to Just Know...to just know what is The Truth.

So, in order to make the uncertainy and confusion and ambiguity and contingency go away they turn to God or Science or some Great Mind in Philosophy to tell them What To Think. Or again, the overwhelming preponderance of folks on the planet obviate the whole thing by not really thinking about it at all. They just internalize the social constructions of the world around them as Reality instead.

RP

truth
RP, just so.
JLN

Good summary RP.

We might have to extend the Unholy Trinity to four ! :wink:

Re: Is Reality a Social Construction ?


I have read over some of this post and have been fascinated with the results and the Very nice thoughts therein.

I wanted to note on objectivism and the above post that objectivism seems to be nearly impossible to fully attain and that state of being 'difficult' has halted the majority of humanity from ever even thinking about attaining it (or through their acculturation they never are exposed to it) and the thought stops there. From that point on unless jolted to do other wise, they live their lives how their subjectivism (narrow view) leads them.

With that and the acculturation already been stated many times over (perhaps in different words) in many philosophical debates it can be seen that society very much so makes up ones 'reality'

nature vs. nurture - the line is very hazy in some cases because ones parents nature inflicts on ones nurturing or lack thereof and perpetuates the parents wants/greed/hate etc causing what we currently see which is the 'plateau of evolution' - that is our current terrifying reality as i see it, and its very much made up of the empathetic who wish to save all humans even children who in a 'strong/intelligent only survival' situation would have died right down to the apathetic who don't care and just want to 'live' till they physically die and pass that apathy upon their children. and its a scary place..

my half pence

I utterly agree with this and view it in my life continuously - and that is our reality hazlitt.

reference to God - he created us we cannot view him directly he is so far 'above' us how can we choose the 'right' religion the 'right' way to worship how can we understand him?

reference to physics/science - just as one posted about the insanity of answering a subjective 'right or wrong' question about abortion it leads on a chain into the abyss of defining how when and the voracity of 'creation' or the everlasting never beginning or ending 'universe' and how can we understand the universe?

reference to society with reference to the 'self' - I am one man say.. i was abandon by all i knew perhaps lost my job out on my own hichhiking i know no one... this world which would be seemingly passing by me would seem external because I would not be inside any 'reality' i'd be outside of any 'cliques' out side of a 'life' therefore i would have created my own reality me, my shoes, my backpack and the dust and i would not be able to understand humanity yet I am still human.

Is Reality a Social Construction ?

That would depend on your definition of reality.

If by reality you mean Xl = 2 pi fl then nope it will not matter what social construction you apply, the inductive reactance will not change.

Objectivity is very tricky you assert. Xl = 2 pi fl will not change based on your claim.

...but we have to be in a particular social relationship for me to "understand" your formula and its mode of application.

Consider also the "reality" of the phrases
(1) This patient is suffering from an imbalance of humors and needs to be bled.
(2) Go to warp drive.

I don't see the need for this relationship you refer to, in fact even if Man never existed, the inductive reactance would still be a function of the frequency.

The only way this would be false is if the fabric of the universe was ever so dramatically changed to the point where all inferences let alone instances of Newton's Third Law did not and could not apply.

The calculation for inductive reactance as expressed prior relies on Newton's Third.

...but "inductive reactance" to a caveman would have no more meaning than "green" in a population of the colour-blind. There has to be the common need to classify/measure.

Who cares if Mr. Cave Dweller does not "Grok", nor does my cat. However my cat (and Mr. Cave Dweller) are bound by the implications of the underlying formula no less than an entity claiming understanding of the formula in question.

Yes but only in so far as we have a concept of same/similar physiology....and that "reality" is also socially negotiated !