Is Reality a Social Construction ?

the blind man would still have a nasty bump on his forehead

...as reported according to the sighted man's vocabulary.

i'm pretty sure the blind man will feel the bump himself.

Even though I haven't checked it out throughly, it seems this episode is part of the epistolary relationship between Samuel Johnson and George Berkeley...

Sources abound on the internet.

But equally In the world of the blind that "bump" might be called a "sympathy horn" with different social consequences. "Reality" is about control (or the lack of it) and consequences. "Things" are evoked accordingly.

oh, whatever, it's still the same pain, same hotness, same nuissance to the person. that's precisely what i mean by overacademizing. might be "interesting", but it's not exactly useful. not to me, that is.

thanks!

Okay, but "sameness" inolves social relationship with respect to reporting, not individual experience per se. We can never place ourselves inside the body of the other. We can only infer commonality of experience.

"Academicizing" (or seminar philosophy) is indeed without use for most everyday interactions because we share "reality" through a common language and common physiology, and that reality is usually a dynamic flow. The focus on "reality" only arises in disputes which interrupt the flow.

Fresco, it's a shame that we have to be constantly reminded of the complexity and relativity of the cultural construction of reality--lifei is interpretation, both individually and collectively. By the way, one of the island groups is reported to hold title to a large rock at the bottom of the sea that no living person has seen.
And with regard to C.I.'s statement (or was it yours) that in some cultural situations "the psychotic becomes the medicine man", I once told my doctor upon seeing his bill: "Are you crazy?"

Fresco, it's a shame that we have to be constantly reminded of the complexity and relativity of the cultural construction of reality--lifei is interpretation, both individually and collectively. By the way, one of the island groups is reported to hold title to a large rock at the bottom of the sea that no living person has seen.
And with regard to C.I.'s statement (or was it yours) that in some cultural situations "the psychotic becomes the medicine man", I once told my doctor upon seeing his bill: "Are you crazy?"

i appreciate the construction of our realities full well. but TO ME it is interesting only to the extent that it is useful. collective memory interests me, because understanding the artificial nature of it, the selective and purposeful process of creating it, is helpful in overcoming ethnic, religious strife. beyond that, again- to me- it's a self-endulging exercise that carries little allure. anyone can philosophise. it's the real shite out there that has my attention. so if you have masses believing something is real, you can deconstruct all you want, they will still go out and kill each other. that's the one thing i do not want to lose sight of in overacademizing.

dag, No fear of anybody overacademizing what we do as humans against other humans and animals. We all try to understand how we all "realize" our reality while we are amongst the living. Some people like to take it beyond that realm.

JLN,

The other ethno-tale I remember is about the tribal group whose marital practices gave everybody a familial label (brother, cousin etc). Having established the correct "identity" of a visitor the host would know the "correct" social procedure to follow. Unfortunately, the first missionaries failed to offer their "social identity" and the only way to solve an intolerably aberrant situation was for them to be murdered.

yeah, c.i. like i say, if i can use it, i like it. beyond, i'm glad somebody else is doing it and not me.

Dagmaraka,

Prior to Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" most scientists assumed "progress" was a relatively smooth pocedure towards filling in the details of an "objective reality". Kuhn argued that this was not the case. Our state of "knowledge" consists in what constitues a current "scientific paradigm" involving the social interactions and language of its participants. Paradigms arise and fall and with them reside shifting concepts of "reality". Such a paradigm has been Quantum Mechanics whose controversial ideas have given us these very devices with which we communicate. So when we say, "social reality is academic" we may be in danger of being a car-driver ignorant of the workings of the engine., which is fine as long as we trust the mechanics to know what they are doing !

yeah i've read kuhn. i got a concrete job to do. it has to do with people's lives and violence between them. deconstruction is only useful to the point that it helps me do my job, for me. rest I personally am not interested in. i understand in, heck, i even agree with it. i just find it boring, that's all.

Dag,

Have you looked at Foucault's stuff on language, relationships and social control ?

Dagmaraka, I understand your pragmatism. We are all that way where it comes down to the practicalities of **** hitting the fan. If I'm drowning--as practical a situation as I can imagine--I have no interest in the chemical/physical nature of water, but what we are attempting in this thread is philosophy, i.e., theoretical grasps of the nature of "water".

I've nothing whatsoever against it...was merely looking for quote that setanta mentioned in the beginning. Like I said - I am glad it's others discussing it and I don't have to even if I agree with the postulates in principle. ;-)

Even in philosophy, my boundaries of interest became practically defined over time.

Yep, have read Foucault.

I myself like Roger Brubaker's stuff on nationalism - that's a balance of constructivism and real life I fully endorse.

I think it's safe to say that the intellectual life is at base a spiritual life. We seek insight--intellectual as well as mystical insight--into Reality for the sheer joy of it...the unexamined life is not much worth living.
This applies I suspect even to the intellectual life of pragmatists--consider Wm. James and Richard Rorty.