mr smith writes:
You are again conflating the name for the thing with the thing itself.
lauguage and mental constructs are symbolic... either only loosely represents physical reality. any number of variable (at least two defined by einstein) might vary how we perceive and define physical reality.
are you suggesting that man thinking is not symbolic?
then mr smith continues with:
So asserting the existence of a reality that is independent of what people think of it is something you want to derisively characterize as "quaint" and "highly misleading"? Are you serious? If that's the case, then I'll plead guilty. Yes, I DO believe reality exists apart from our ideas about it. Pretty wacky, huh?
why yes it is... such thinking would have been quite mainstream 100 years ago but will get you no gold stars given what we know today. betrand russell (a history of western philisophy) attacts the question quite directly and pretty much lines out who is currently 'winning' in regards to this basic question (which has been around at least as long as the ancient greeks).
then mr smith writes:
You object to the term political correctness? LOL. I can think of a lot of other terms for those people who attempt to shut down debate on these questions by means of personal attacks, but none of them are so polite. This reminds me of the line in the Woody Allen movie "Annie Hall":
proving a point by presenting some line from a movie (fictional I would guess???) does not give much weight to your argument. given the movie is likely (haven't seen it, so I am guessing here) a comody and fiction (by definition somewhat to highly removed from reality) suggest you are guilty of exactly the kind of thinking (actually the lack thereof) of what you are accusing others.
Actually though, political is exactly the right word, since it's apparent that those reality-deniers who claim that races are socially constructed do so for political, not scientific, reasons. They are frightened by the implications of the idea that human races exist, differing in outward form, temperament, aptitudes, and abilities, much like European and African bees do.
perhaps you might first want to establish some definition for the term politcally correct with which we could all agree??? if not??? then you are only intermixing the thinking of science with current strategies of political spin to obtain some political advantage.
once again your constant 'attempt' to falling back on the vague term of political correctness speaks volumes about your thinking (well actually the lack thereof).
then mr smith adds:
The evolutionary origin of the European bee is not germane. The point is that the two races of bees are different NOW. Further, they would continue to be different NOW, regardless of the perceptions or even the existence of man.
I gave you a simple 'real world' example which you have decided to reject. quite obviously if man didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation and the 'differences' (if they exist) would not matter one whit.
it is quite evident (at least to me) that you are highly confuse into believing that mental model (constructs) are reality or politcal spin (which is my own personal view of what 'politically correct' actually represents) might in someway alter these constructs. that is.... by altering the rhetoric you might in someway alter how folks think (which is by itself quite a viable idea).
then mr smith writes:
"Reality is that which remains after you stop believing in it."
another meaningless and unidentified quote. your argument grows constantly weaker.
Tags for this Thread