Social constuction of reality and history

[Anahita]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

It looks like the post-modernists dug themselves in a grave....

Rationalism, or what we call modernity (since rationalism is the touchstone of modernity), believes in nothing...

Belief in anything, in other words, is the opposite of rationalism...

A conventional army cannot defeat and historically has always had difficulty defeating decentralized enemies...

And hence, spreading Western "values" and "Democracy" to a people and a culture with a different mentality and belief system, is a fools game.

You manage to pack so much into your posts (even though sometimes sometimes you contradict yourself from prior posts... that's perfectly fine, though.)

I'd agree with some of this, like I mentioned before. Hardcore rationalists (objecting to irrational--that they define) place themselves in a weird intellectual corner. (Non-extreme) rationalism doesn't need to translate to 'believe in nothing.' If ideas are a pendulum, the highest point on each swing is a point. Some people see things in terms of only those two points (black and white). Other people see a continuum (shades of grey). I actually conceptualize knowledge in a sphere, not evem a line (but that's much more than this topic).

Today I saw that a woman shouted at Bush and China's leader. Something like, "Bush, stop China from persecuting the Falun Gong." China has (since 1999) sought to oppress this group--because they were able to organize the largest peaceful, decentralized 'democratic' protest in China since Tieneman (sp?) Square. That also gets at the 'democracy' word-meaning differences.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

You manage to pack so much into your posts (even though sometimes sometimes you contradict yourself from prior posts... that's perfectly fine, though.)

How do I contradict myself? Please point it out. Furthermore, what is wrong with contradictions? Contradictions only exist where one views through the prism of logic. The world is understood in terms of flux as opposed to something fixed. And where there are many perspectives there cannot be contradictions. I wouldn't call a contradiction so much as a defect, but a virtue! After all, does such a person learn less of truth?

[Anahita]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

I agree. There isn't anything 'wrong' with contradictions (or what SEEM like those at first glace), Anonymouse. And I'd also agree that contradictions exist through the prism of logic (nice wording, btw.)

I once wrote a great paper for an honors course on logic and rationality. My teacher gave me an F (and I'm a straight A student!) LOL. The paper was perfect. She was too damn stubborn to consider something new (outside of what she taught and wanted regurgitated back in term-paper format.) I answered all the questions, as asked and also incorporated relevant text. She was nuts (in my HO), but since that paper wouldn’t hurt me, I left her to gloat in her ignorance. Her loss.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

I agree. There isn't anything 'wrong' with contradictions (or what SEEM like those at first glace), Anonymouse. And I'd also agree that contradictions exist through the prism of logic (nice wording, btw.)

I once wrote a great paper for an honors course on logic and rationality. My teacher gave me an F (and I'm a straight A student!) LOL. The paper was perfect. She was too damn stubborn to consider something new (outside of what she taught and wanted regurgitated back in term-paper format.) I answered all the questions, as asked and also incorporated relevant text. She was nuts (in my HO), but since that paper wouldn’t hurt me, I left her to gloat in her ignorance. Her loss.

As you can see, here you have first hand evidence of how your professor, like the many great patrons of rationalism, behaving in an irrational manner! Haha, don't you love irony?

[Siggie]

Re: Social constuction of reality and history

I understand. History is all about storytelling around a set of facts. You and I might have identical facts, but come up with very different narratives based on those. e.g., Did Columbus ‘discover’ or ‘invade’ the Americas?

There is an objective reality. People do not have direct access to that reality, though. Everything anyone sees and thinks is filtered through experience, words, prior knowledge, and so on. There is no such thing as an observer-free observation (and all observers have different kinds and levels of bias.)

Oh great. This discussion again.

There are facts. You can say person A hit person B. What you don't have access to is why. Problem with history or journalism is that what's reported doesn't stop there. Speculations as to the unknown circumstances are thrown in.

As for science. Yeah, it's true enough that we can't be completely unbiased in many situations, but that doesn't mean that our work is worthless and that doesn't mean that we should abandon our attempts to be objective and unbiased.