Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
My understanding of your stance (on this post) is that you are a social constructionist (SC) ? And my understanding of social constructionism is that it regards human language as being more than just a way of communicating with people.
In addition to a social constructionist, I am also an anti-foundationalist everything is just local narratives. Niklas Luhmann made the argument (and I agree with him) - because the notion of "meaning" is contingent it follows that language is just communication.
But do observe, the labels I pin upon myself make absolutely no difference to me. Even the label "social constructionist". I am only using the term as means of communicating my self-knowledge/understanding in a language that you (hopefully) understand.
As we interact and develop new language/meaning, I will end up re-desrcibing myself in words that (eventually) make more sense to you.
That is an important point: I am happy to invent language/meaning on the fly because I know how meaning-making works in practice.
If you don't know how language and meaning-making works - you can't play along with me.
People who don't understand how the game works usually object with something like "but we need shared language to communicate".
No! We need shared language to initiate communication - we can invent shared language as we go along (which is exactly what society has been doing for thousands of years).
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
Rather a SC seriously believes that people "exist" in language.
I seriously believe that the concept of "existence" exists only in your head (as do all concepts). Similarly the cognitive process which asserts that anything exist, exists only in your head also. If you weren't there to ask the questions "What exists?" the concept of existence wouldn't exist.
The same goes with the concept/idea of a 'person'. You project personhood upon things which agree with your conception of a person.
This is a falsifiable claim by the way. The moment you find an example of something, ANYTHING for which you have no concept of - then I will concede my philosophical position to be wrong.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
So the focus in this philosophical approach is not really on the individual person, but rather on social interaction
Incorrect. The focus on EVERY philosophical approach is on the interaction between the individual-I with reality, but to every individual - society is part of reality. You can't interact with reality without also interacting with every other individual.
The focus is on interaction. Full stop.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
in which human language is generated, sustained and abandoned, etc. But it is actually more than this, because the social constructionist position is that there are no "real" external entities that can be accurately mapped or apprehended. Right ?
No. I cannot speak on behalf of every constructivist. I can only speak on my behalf of myself in as much as I self-identify as a constructivist.
My position is that the categories you call "real" and "exist" are just categories in your head.
My position is that the mechanism by which you map entities into ANY categories is entirely subjective.
The position is that there is no objective mechanism for categorising things and so your mapping function and my mapping function could be completely different.
If there was an objective way to derive categories, then you must be able to build me a machine to categorize things into 'real' and 'not real.
I would be tremendously interested to see the
classification rule of any such machine, its inclusion and exclusion criteria for each category.
In the most abstract reductionist sense this is a non-determinism argument.
If you are the only living thing in the universe and you need not interact with other living things - why do you need the "external/internal" distinction?
And the question that destroys the dualistic external/internal distinction: is your temporal lobe containing all of your memories internal or external to "you"?
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
I mean ,do you really believe this nonsense, Skeptic ?
I have absolutely no idea what arbitrary categories of 'sense' and 'nonsense' exist in your head, Dachshund.
The fact that you disapprove of my way of thinking sounds like a you-problem, not a me-problem.
I have no beliefs - only methods. My methods are effective (to varying degrees) towards attaining what I want/need/desire.
They work well enough that I am retired and financially independent at 36 - it's Monday. I am in my beach-side villa drinking wine, and I am probably going to go fuck my wife shortly.
To this end, my 'beliefs' are only instrumental to my goals. Beliefs with no instrumental utility are of no use to me. The very concept of 'belief' is a useless concept.
Q.E.D you have absolutely no ontological idea what "beliefs" are and you have absolutely no empirical way to determine whether I have any beliefs, and you have absolutely no way to check whether my beliefs correspond in any way to the words I use to describe them. Our "beliefs" only exist in the LANGUAGE in which I express them to you. It's all narrative.
We are attempting to narrate the way our minds work in language - doesn't work very well to be honest.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
But you are NOT being sensible.
Do you have an objective, epistemic criterion for asserting 'sensibility'? Or are you just communicating your disapproving value-judgment of my methods?
Again - I don't care if you think I am not being sensible. Your opinion doesn't matter to me.
If your opinion began mattering to me - I will adopt any narrative that bears your mark of "sensibility", "realness" or any other label that signifies your rubber-stamp of approval to make myself part of your in-group. I will SAY that I believe anything you believe - I will learn your language and I will speak it.
I'll virtue signal the fuck out of whatever you desire if it's to my benefit to do so.
It is all just language! It's way easier to change mine than to convince you to change yours.
I am pragmatic like that.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
If the answer is: "No, I do believe that SC is a very plausible thesis !",
You have no objective epistemic criterion for plausibility to discern a plausible from a non-plausible thesis!
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
Or are you just playing "devil's advocate"?
Playing devil's advocate is precisely HOW communication works! It's not just "playing devil's advocate for its own sake" - there is a method behind the madness.
By adding white noise to the communication channel (which i can later remove in my own head) I am increasing the signal strength. By taking a contrarian position I maximise the effectiveness of our communication.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_ ... sian_noise
The greater the distinction between your philosophical position, and the philosophical position I assume - the more contrast/differential between A and B - the more information emerges in the interaction.
I am exploiting this for my benefit - you aren't.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
then try sticking your middle finger up your arse a few times and then examine it. What you will find is that your middle finger is now covered in a layer of a substance called "shit", and "shit" is objectively real no matter
It doesn't matter if it's shit or candy. And it matters even less if it's real or just a placebo.
Unless you enjoy the placebo-taste of your finger after it's been in your ass, you are probably not going to put your finger in your mouth.
Even if your ass is full of skittles.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
what you or anyone else in your community/society/culture happens to call it ( some anglophone people call it (shit): faeces, "poo" or "crap";
Evidently some people in my society choose to call it "objective" and "real" in addition to "shit", "poo" and "crap.
Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:57 am
"
SHIT HAPPENS", Skeptic. That's why you need to abandon your flirtation with Social Constructionism, and "
KEEP IT REAL.
"
I am!
My narrative is more real than your narrative.