Is Reality a Social Construction ?

@hawkeye10,

Except that there are billions of suns in the galaxy -- our sun is Sol.

@hawkeye10,

Welcome to the cognescenti Hawkeye !

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

... your reply reminds me of the story of early anthropologists in Africa explaining the mechanics of the night sky to the natives...."We understand all that", they said," but how did you learn the names of the stars and planets ?"

0 Replies

Quote:

Yes, because language is a social construct thus "sun" is a construct. Even if we had no language that which we call sun and Galaxy might be recognized as something, but as what it is impossible to say.

The mind sifts and categorizes, but how a particular mind does so is completely tied to how others do it. There is also the matter of how we are too close to ourselves to know ourselves, we only know ourselves by the wake we leave in this world, by how who we are reflects off of those around us. The people in our lives are mirrors who reflect back to us who we are, with out those mirrors we would never know ourselves. All we are and all that we know is in wholly and completely tied to the collective.

And this is something you know for a fact…or will insist that you know for a fact…rather than a blind guess about reality not unlike the blind guesses about reality made by theists and atheists…correct???

How do you people all get so immersed in this nonsense???

Do you have shut off button for your minds?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

And this is something you know for a fact…or will insist that you know for a fact…rather than a blind guess about reality not unlike the blind guesses about reality made by theists and atheists…correct???

because people who have spent their lives looking into such matters have come to this conclusion, and my life experience suggest to me that they are correct.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawkeye, your last statement is completely consistent with the paradigm of those qualitative sociologists known as Symbolic Interactionists. Well done.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank, I thought A2K was the point of no return for you, nice to see you back, you 'ol confirmed-agnostic!

Gotta get back to Law & Order.......

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 3529206)
Quote:
And this is something you know for a fact…or will insist that you know for a fact…rather than a blind guess about reality not unlike the blind guesses about reality made by theists and atheists…correct???

because people who have spent their lives looking into such matters have come to this conclusion, and my life experience suggest to me that they are correct.

Ahhh...so it is a blind guess that you are trying to pass off as fact because "people who have spent their lives looking into such matters have come to this conclusion!!!!"

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Hey Chumly...good to see ya.

I am enjoying my return. Just having a bit of fun here. Hope nobody is getting out of tune because of it.

I must say that A2K has gotten a great deal nastier than it was back when.

What the heck is going on?????

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What the heck is going on?????

A breaking down of civility......the bullies have not been confronted and been made to suffer for their bad behaviour. Vigorous intellectual disagreement is no problem, but far to often now such disagreements instantly turn into personal animosities, and those who behave thus have not been properly held to account. The community is responsible for letting the standards slide.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I stopped posting for about 6 months when they started up the new format as I did not much take to it. The format has improved some, so I've taken to posting, but since I started teaching (also about 6 months ago) I've not had as much time for A2K.

As far as the nasty quotient goes, it would be a bit tough for me to judge as I don't read / post as much (for the above reasons) however you may well be right.

In any case a majority of the cast of characters remains, in concert with some new ones and if there is any overriding reasons for an increase in the nasties, it could be the tough winter combined with the economic turn-down.

Albeit there is no winter nor economic turn-down, if there is no social construct to supply it..........or so some would assert...........not me however with respect to my posts referencing Xl = 2 pi fl.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Re Bullies: this is a proof of the external world. According to Freud's Pleasure Principle we don't create in our mind things which are irksome: these tiresome creatures cause much vexation. Kierkegaard would have invented them if they werent readily apparent. Thefore reality must have an external component.
However if anyone can eradicate them by logical argument I would be most gratified.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

Nobody would dispute the utility of the concept of an "external reality".
However it is beholden on those who call themselves "philosophers" to delve further into such utility. We see, for example, that all is "in flux" and that the so called "permanence" of features of reality are merely related to our predictive aspirations relative to our lifespans. All logical concepts such as "truth" "facts" and "proof" are subservient to a concept of "objective permanence" hence there is a glaring philosophical problem of the application of "logic" to ontological questions.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Ahhh...so it is a blind guess that you are trying to pass off as fact because "people who have spent their lives looking into such matters have come to this conclusion!!!!"

Brilliant! Just brilliant!

I object to your naming it a blind guess, because it is not blind and it is more than a guess. We intuitives are not right so much of the time as a result of luck alone. I am Zen by the way, so as to inform you of where I come from.

0 Replies

@fresco,

I think you have taken up a pretty solid position: I point out that "flux" may turn out to be a charming euphemism for total catastrophe and extinction of reality. However people who bet on the end of reality aren't going to collect much.
You seem to discard a lot of tools: I quite like logic as a reasonable means of establishing a proposition. My criticism of your approach is its essentially reductionist nature: Reality may be greater than the sum of our perception, and verifiable external sources, plus other pieces.
Which tools can we use to determine the ontological question then? Democratic vote? Invoking spirits?

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

The question of "tools" is an epistemological one...i.e. we must examine the essence of "explanation". At present, what constitutes a satisfactory explanation is couched in terms of "sucessful"prediction and control. But writers like Capra point out that such a "controlling" trait is a chauvinistic attribute of human "cognition". He points to alternative concepts such " life as a system" and to the mathematics of the sustainabilty of such a system. This is an attempt at a non-anthropocentric approach in which "cognition" is relegated is a less important place in the system hierarchy.

Capra's approach is in concordance with earlier ideas such as Piaget's "Genetic Epistemology" and Maturna's "autopoises". Both of these attempt to transcend the philosophical problem of "causality", by moving towards the mathematics of "spontaneous coherence" as modelled by say "catastophe theory".

I am not saying that these are "solutions" to the inapplicability of traditional logic, only that they serve as useful vantage points in the development of the semantics of ontology. They are of course driven by the social forces towards ecology, but also more interestingly, perhaps. by problems of "the observer" in quantum physics.

0 Replies

We must keep in mind that much of our worldview--or any worldview--consists of notions and beliefs that have utility--we might even grant them the status of "truth"--yet they reflect and rest upon presuppositions that are philosophically very problematical. Truth, itself, is one of them.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Which is why I propose an axiomatic approach. Rather them engaging in infinite regression lets come up with some common ideas which no reasonable person could argue with. This is what a mathematician would do

1) I exist
2) what I perceive exists
3) this is only true for this moment
4) logical argument exists

This is a starting point. Anything you derive from these statements can be considered true.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

Quote:

1) I exist
2) what I perceive exists
3) this is only true for this moment
4) logical argument exists

1) an "I" separate from the other is an illusion of the ego, a necessary illusion but when the mind starts with the posit of "I" and builds all reality around it things go bad in a hurry.

2) the imaginary I does perceive things, which must be kept track of, however that which exists may exist only in one mind...all depends upon how well that mind is linked to other minds

3) everything is true only for an instant, we are aware of it only after that instant is gone, so we are never completely in the instant. With practice one can get closer to it however

4) yes, though logic is itself subjective so lets not get too carried away with our faith in it

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I dont argue with any of your points: I claim mine is snappier, and therefore true by method of Occams Razor

3 Replies

Is Reality a Social Construction ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know