I find this a bit too broad. What would it mean to abolish sewing machines? It's not what I had in mind, though there is clearly some connection. I'm inclined to say that a sewing machine or a pumpkin patch is not a social construct as I mean it, precisely because it is a physical presence. Whereas the notion of property 'that it is my sewing machine or my pumpkin patch' very much is. — unenlightened
I honestly believe that informed citizens sharing their views with each other is crucial to change. Changed minds is a necessary if not a sufficient condition for social change, and talking is how you get there. — Srap Tasmaner
↪Thanatos Sand It's what I assumed you are based on your last comment. Could be direct realist I guess.
Concepts become something that is, by definition really, imposed on reality.
This is the deconstruction as I understand it, that we are conditioned by our social constructs to the extent that we cannot distinguish the real from the conditioned. And to pretend that we can - which is all of our discussion - is hubristic overreach. — unenlightened
if the social is real, if it belongs on the side of the real, then the distinction to be made is no longer oppositional; one cannot neatly parse the social and the real not because of some limitation on our 'finite', human selves - the attempt to go beyond which would be "hubris" - but because the concepts themselves no longer lend themselves to any such neat parsing. — StreetlightX
But then we still have the question of how to distinguish what is (real and) constructed from what is (real and) not constructed. — Srap Tasmaner
In spite of collective belief that blacks are equal to whites in America, blacks are -- by the stats -- treated worse than whites.
.Would you say that blacks and other minorities are being treated better today than say 70 years ago.
See I'm not even sure about this either: I think that if taken to the limit, deconstruction entails that there are, as it were, constructions other than those of the social. That is, the word 'social' in 'social construction' ought to be understood as something that qualifies scope. There are asocial constructions, constructions of biology, of geology, of celestial dynamics, and then there are constructions that pertain to 'the social', each of these with it's own specific mechanisms and modes of functioning. I understand 'social construction' in an entirely naturalist way, as it were. And I think, moreover, this is how it should be understood. — StreetlightX
I'm still going to want to distinguish between construction processes dependent upon organisms acting within an environment and constructions processes that require only natural forces. — Srap Tasmaner
I am happy to provide a supporting reference, the first example Ryle gives in The Concept of Mind to explain his newly coined term "category-mistake": a visitor being shown around Oxford and told about all the buildings, finally asks his guide, "But where is the University?"
His mistake lay in his innocent assumption that it was correct to speak of Christ Church, the Bodleian Library, the Ashmolean Museum and the University, to speak, that is, as if 'the University' stood for an extra member of the class of which these other units are members. He was mistakenly allocating the University to the same category as that to which the other institutions belong.
I don't think you'll find category mistakes limited to definite descriptions though. — Srap Tasmaner
I think it is reasonable to limit 'construct' to the productions of life-forms. Thus a mountain is a formation, but an ant-hill is a construct. — unenlightened
Is this reasonable though? Surely this simply widens the circle of exceptionalism to a kind of 'life-exceptionalism' - from anthropocentrism to biocentrism. — StreetlightX
one does not 'conjunct' 'the peak, the ridge and the mountain'). — StreetlightX
Yes, I think it is reasonable to deny non-life a centre, where a centre is a point of view. The distinction between life and non-life I would say is indispensable to almost any kind of sensible talk about the world. — unenlightened
One does, however conjunct the anthill and the ant colony, or the university and it's facilities, or more generally, house and home. — unenlightened
I don't understand what a center or a point of view has to do with constructs or formations, and why either would be important to the latter in any principled way. — StreetlightX
There is a kettle.
There is a third person mode of speech.
There is no third person, and no third person point of view.
If you think there is a third person, be so kind as to introduce them to me. — unenlightened
You seem to want to argue that this concept ought to be employed only in reference to living things. — StreetlightX
One does, however conjunct the university and it's facilities.
— unenlightened
Yes, and? — StreetlightX
I think that simply is how it is generally used, and yes, we ought to use it that way too. — unenlightened
It is you that wants to suggest that it ought to mean sedimentary rocks as well as things we make with them.
And therefore Ryle's exemplar of a category error turns out not to be one, and the distinction between the inanimate construction of the university buildings and the social construct of the university itself is a valid one. — unenlightened
Category errors are context dependent. Ryle's 'use' of the university and it's buildings is very much a category error, and you are wrong about it not being one. — StreetlightX
I am happy to provide a supporting reference, the first example Ryle gives in The Concept of Mind to explain his newly coined term "category-mistake": a visitor being shown around Oxford and told about all the buildings, finally asks his guide, "But where is the University?" — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.