4 ms·
Yes, humans use terminology to describe abstract concepts. This terminology often has nothing to do with the actual inner workings of this abstract concept. Eve
by pprotas 3y ago
Yes, humans use terminology to describe abstract concepts. This terminology often has nothing to do with the actual inner workings of this abstract concept. Everything is a social construct.
- jl6 3y agoMakes one wonder what the purpose of calling something a social construct is, if everything is one.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoGenerally, there isn't one.
- krapp 3y agoTo separate it from natural constructs. Specifically, to counter claims that certain social constructs are natural constructs.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoSocieties are naturally occurring, so all social constructs are natural constructs and all natural constructs are social constructs. None of these terms mean anything.
- pengstrom 3y agoYou're looking at it wrong. We can't change the laws of physics, but we can change society. That's the practical difference.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoThe 'laws of physics' are a model that change all the time through a process known as 'science'.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoHave you not read Latour. Scientific facts such as the laws of physics are socially constructed.
- krapp 3y agoEverything in the universe is composed of atoms, therefore nature doesn't exist, the term doesn't mean anything. What are humans but a collection of atoms? And yet, despite nature being composed of atoms, we can speak of nature. We can speak of humanity, despite humans being primates, and we can speak of civilization, despite other primates not being capable of civilization. Language is merely breathing and moving the tongue, yet choking is not language. Water is not hydrogen peroxide despite both being composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Not every reductio ad absurdum argument succeeds in disproving the value of the abstraction it seeks to deconstruct. All social constructs are not natural constructs in the sense that "natural" is being employed here. Capitalism is not defined by the laws of physics. Animals don't practice capitalism. Capitalism is a "natural construct" in that we humans are biological entities and therefore a part of nature, but capitalism is not a natural construct in the sense that it is defined entirely by physical law or immutable biological instinct. The context matters. These terms do have meaning. The fact that you can attempt an argument based on their semantics, which differs from simply pounding random letters on the keyboard, demonstrates that they have meaning.
- YurgenJurgensen 3y agoYou claim they have meaning but you made no attempt to define either.
- asimpletune 3y agoTo remind ourselves that this is the case
- amelius 3y ago> Everything is a social construct. Well if the abstraction is invented by a lone programmer who doesn't want to write documentation, is it a social construct? Probably not -> social construct is just the wrong term.