Dr. Dennis Hiebert presents: "What does 'The Social Construction of Reality' Mean?"
Пікірлер: 211
@vangelisevangelides55204 жыл бұрын
Whose here because of a uni class? If you are best of luck!
@elliewhitewood3 жыл бұрын
Lol nope hs. Best of luck though.
@maxfuchs74133 жыл бұрын
does highschool cound?
@nadimmahmud85003 жыл бұрын
Yes
@nelltaylor55152 жыл бұрын
Me...last assignment befor I graduate. I am studying to be an art therapist and sociology is fantastically confusing. I have to answer are bodies social? I thought I might go with the idea of the body as a cultural canvas specifically body modifications through history, what do you think? Need all the help I can get even from a stranger across the world. Hope you have had a great year sorry for the weird reply!
@evalolacookie2 жыл бұрын
Heck no here from Mythvision podcast 💯
@richardkoenigsberg42717 жыл бұрын
Excellent articulation of the basic ideas of Berger and Luckman. Human beings create social reality.
@jjwebster13 жыл бұрын
I wish others would agree with you on that it's a social reality.
@emreengin51633 жыл бұрын
Mostly agreed. It might sound a bit more complete with just a small addition. "Human beings create social reality while they are mutually being created by social reality concurrently".
@shannonm.townsend12322 жыл бұрын
@@emreengin5163 he basically said that.
@reyzii89893 жыл бұрын
I got an A on my exam about The Social Construction of Reality. I love this theory so much, and it makes so much sense. I know it is hard to learn, it was for me too, but once you do...! Wow, it'll blow your mind
@brunodominguez1512 жыл бұрын
i need to write an essay for tomorrow and I dont understand it :(((
@nhb3529 Жыл бұрын
@@brunodominguez151 how did the assignment go
@anuragbhatt7160 Жыл бұрын
@@nhb3529I guess you have got the answer by watching time frame😅
@nomfundodlamini50177 жыл бұрын
I didn't realize that as more things become more dependent on us they existence they become more meaningfully to us... that's really true
@loosiecraig26159 жыл бұрын
I just had the difference explained to me by a lecturer at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia - Social constructionism and social constructivism are similar terms, but the former originates in sociology and the latter in psychology. Both refer to the theory that our world is socially constructed rather than objective. The psych term, when used properly refers to the cognitive processes involved in the social construction of our understanding and experience of the world. Given the similarity of meanings, the terms are often used interchangeably. Strictly speaking, students of sociology should stick to using the term social constructionism.
@sitholenkosinathi31617 жыл бұрын
Loosie Craig please share with the examples of social construction therapy
@TeaParty17765 жыл бұрын
> our world is socially constructed rather than objective. Your rationalization of your fear of independent judgment is noted.
@CH-wd6qs4 жыл бұрын
This is absolutely fascinating, I feel like I need to watch it 3 more times to fully understand it though.
@aidepaul5342 жыл бұрын
No wonder you don't understand. He doesn't explain anything. He just chants a load of unsupported claims about reality. Most of which are obviously false. "We impose the order of race" - yes, because of discernible differences in human beings, not because of nothing.
@CH-wd6qs2 жыл бұрын
@@aidepaul534 It's been two years, so I understand a bit better now. The idea of the social construction of race is a sound one. Yes, people's skintones do differ, but our classification of people into races didn't become common practice until the age of slavery as a means of justification, as the logic went that it was okay to use "lesser" races to our benefit. Even the concept of "whiteness" has been used to exclude people. Irish people, for example, suffered intense discrimination for many years and weren't considered "white" even if that label would obviously describe their skintone. So basically, race as a conceptvis mostly used not as a simple classification of skintone, but as a justifier and enforcer of social hierarchy
@aidepaul5342 жыл бұрын
@@CH-wd6qs Race is not based solely on skintone. But anyway, the fact that the concept of race is used in a bad way doesn't mean that the differences that constitute races do not exist or are a construct.
@CH-wd6qs2 жыл бұрын
@@aidepaul534 According to you, what is race and the function thereof?
@aidepaul5342 жыл бұрын
@@CH-wd6qs I'm sure there are observable criteria within scientific definitions of race. It's not up to me. The function of race doesn't interest me, since whatever the function may be it's not a patch on the existence of that which constitutes it.
@samanperera36582 жыл бұрын
Excellent, Very well explained, and the appropriate examples made the learning easier. Thank you very much.
@stylewithaudra55703 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this amazing summary of Social Constructionism. I am happily constructing great value to this video and to the research process it has begun for me!🙏
@unknownpantones1721 Жыл бұрын
Peter L. Berger says “Constructionism” is a term he often rejects because “the social construction of reality” isn't an ideology as much as it’s a point of view.
@zhannaberdinayesitalk12783 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much! This is just an amazing and most comprehensive lecture about the Social Construction. I have read lot of stuff about it but this lecture is the best.
@yassineelboujadaini73142 жыл бұрын
thank you for this lecture, i read the original book twice. Still, i don't understand the idea of the book clearly, in particular, the process "externalization, institutionalization, internalization" until I watched this Video. thank you sir. good day to everyone.
@emilio2216 жыл бұрын
99% of comments don't know what social constructionism is and need to read husserl or schutz.
@krowan17175 жыл бұрын
Or even just listen a little more carefully.
@kevindilapanga7595 жыл бұрын
Understandable lecture, this really helps me understand the theory more.
@DerKalashnyhorst3 жыл бұрын
Absolutely on point - because of you I finally unterstood the whole theory.
@luckyme87084 жыл бұрын
A very calm and confident presentation.
@meridithbertwell10375 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this concise and inspiring lecture! I enjoyed listening to your powerful John Malkovich speaking voice.
@d0ntt3lln313 жыл бұрын
Even before I listened I thought he reminded me of John Malkovich
@amandacase67762 жыл бұрын
@@d0ntt3lln31 me too!
@CrapAt0ItsBest8 жыл бұрын
Was that a ripoff of the TedEd intro?
@lisaok19793 жыл бұрын
Brilliant. Thank you for sharing.
@EyvonneBlack8 жыл бұрын
Thank you ........ You helped me enormously to write a comprehensive presentation on Social Construction. Bless you
@biapac78493 жыл бұрын
What's the branch for which they ask students to write stuff about a pointless discipline like this?
@invisible5478Ай бұрын
Thank you ❤️❤️🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
@metamaggot4 жыл бұрын
"reality can be deconstructed and reconstructed"..is basically the same as "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past" from 1984...
@northchurch7533 жыл бұрын
Bit of an odd connection to make. It's a sociological concept, not Orwellianism
@TheCedilia8 жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed this lecture! Thank you for posting it.
@truestoriesfromtheworld7 ай бұрын
Philosophy for kindergarten, and I have to take exam in it😢😢😢😢
@imaladywith32 ай бұрын
this was the explanation I needed...
@gwenthsimoy18813 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this wonderful presentation!
@haakvikdalen9 жыл бұрын
Excellent overview of this some what complex theory. The final question for me to resolve, is what the difference is between the construction -ism and -vism? And to what extend moderate constructions are the be understood as the same as sosial construtions? Øyvind Pedersen, University of Tromsø, Norway
@johndemeritt34603 жыл бұрын
I know that the phrase "social construction" has been around since the early 1900s and has become increasingly used by a variety of people to mean a variety of things. I think that to be more sociologically precise, we may want to adapt "mutually constructed social reality" to capture the truest essence of what we mean.
@shannonm.townsend12322 жыл бұрын
How many have to agree for it to be "mutual"? What metric used to determine level of agreement?
@samthesomniator3 жыл бұрын
Okay. I understand political debate as arguing about what is social constructed and what is a natural kind. It is often about things like market, race and gender as something that is given as a fact (natural reality) or depending on human culture and therefore can be re- and deconstructed.
@thomasdemunck43262 жыл бұрын
Does anyone know where I can get the source of the table regarding the different types of realities (objective/subjective, dependent/independent)? I'd like to refer to it in my essay but could not find its origin. Thanks!
@esk8jaimes11 ай бұрын
8:41 ''We carry culture around in our heads, we let culture define who we are.' And so, reality is socially constructed.''
@jamesevans32214 жыл бұрын
The start premise was brilliant, for me lost in a side track of example. for me the exploration of a premise into the construct of reality to the the way we measure it, is its own consciousness. beyond that is time itself, connected, we are a multidimensional paradox
@gugugama97232 жыл бұрын
here cos my lecurerer got me in my feelings kmt.
@Priya369h Жыл бұрын
What a wonderful lecture!
@j.96934 жыл бұрын
He is an excellent teacher. Can't the Great Courses invite him to offer an college-level audio and/or video course, titled, "Social Science and Christianity," or better yet, "Religion and Sociology"?
@asceticsceptic61925 жыл бұрын
I disagree with the statement "as things become more dependent on us they become more meaningful." The things in life which I find most meaningful exist naturally and independently, and therefore do not rely on the human agent for it's existence. For example: If I gaze at the stars and become imbued with an overwhelming sense of meaning, it is because there is a part of me which intuitively knows that the stars and myself are inseparable. This has nothing to do with a social construct or dependency. The meaning derived from nature is both inherent and universally shared.
@blackhole44 жыл бұрын
I think you misinterpreted what he meant by meaningful.. given the social contruct of society. Let’s say we have a hammer and there’s a million people who need to put a nail in a wall. That hammer would be more meaningful to the individuals in the social construct then if we were to supply them with stars. Meaning is abstract, and I agree the stars are truly breathtaking although it serves to purpose to have one in my pocket if I need to put a nail in the wall.
@leighmccormickstudent6190 Жыл бұрын
This is very informative "Thank you"
@chandrario96132 жыл бұрын
Thanks for information
@muskduh2 жыл бұрын
thanks for the video
@menoyuno84307 жыл бұрын
The theory of "social construction" was also socially constructed correct? if something is or may not be objective truth simply because it was socially constructed (and is dependent on people for its own existence) wouldn't this in turn diminish the objective validity of social construction as a theory in the first place.
@fichelmoucault39377 жыл бұрын
Yes! I think you are on to something here!
@j2y2k37 жыл бұрын
This is one of the recurring themes in postmodern thought, especially among left-leaning intellectuals. For example, they'll say, "There is no such thing as an absolute truth." But, you must accept the concept of absolute truth, to accept their declaration. At the end of the day, the source of this irrationality and the contradictory nature of these statements, stems from the fact that the academic left, is more concerned with political ends than the pursuit of objective truth and making good judgment/decisions; all of which was and is many cases still is the goal of most elite schools.
@hendrikvanderbreggen7 жыл бұрын
Good points. Perhaps this friendly philosophical critique of "The Social Construction of Reality" will be helpful: apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.ca/2016/12/deconstructing-social-construction-of.html
@kinkyplunk6 жыл бұрын
Social constructionism gets a lot of stick because it is misunderstood. It's even misunderstood by some of those who claim to be its proponents. But in short, many many constructionists do not deny that a world exists 'out there', as academics like to say. The perspective is not about what is and is not real, but about the social relationships and dynamics of knowledge that shape how we make sense of the world - how we categorise it and so on. A way of illustrating this is to take something concrete and undeniably real, like a physical disease. Skin cancer exists. It is objectively true. But as soon as we start to discuss it, to give it words and meanings and morals (e.g. it's your fault because you sunbathe), it also becomes a social thing. It takes on a social reality because we develop a social construction of it.
@BarriosGroupie6 жыл бұрын
Yes, and I've thought about this as well as have others: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34239/is-a-social-construction-a-social-construction/34308
@TramainBacchus7 жыл бұрын
words that kill
@bongatembe14797 жыл бұрын
how is reality socially constructed?
@kimfreeborn11 ай бұрын
Divine Command has been questioned since Plato. Religions are not beyond questioning of Divine Command thus their diversity. Nature and our many views of it presuppose a diversity of popular and scientific thinking. The constructivist view tends to take the old Nature/Nurture controversy with bias toward the nurture side. Sometimes, as is well the case here, humans are viewed as entirely socially constructed. To me this gives to much credit to nurture and obscures human predispositions and instincts. Furthermore, the constructivist's view of our social institutions as arbitrary brings into question their own beliefs as no less arbitrary and fanciful leaving them no where to hang their hat be it nature or nurture.
@metatron48907 жыл бұрын
Is the law of non-contradiction or photons social constructs?
@hauntologicalwittgensteini25424 жыл бұрын
Idea of the law of non contradiction and the idea of photons are constructed but the law of non-contradiciton is an abatraction and photons themselves are real
@ppstross2 жыл бұрын
John Malkovich is so talented! 👏
@pangradia95983 жыл бұрын
i didnt understand the internalization
@graemeoliver744 Жыл бұрын
very pertinent to today's situation where everyone is ignoring an immune damage vascular disease that never went anywhere, but people wanted brunch
@bort6414 Жыл бұрын
Oh noes, a widdle cough with a .03% fatality rate amongst young adults, better give the government the authority to force you to obey utterly arbitrary rules at gunpoint guies!11!!11 You're delusional.
@wawiojet83138 жыл бұрын
is this what is exactly mentionned in Berger & Lckmann 's book or there are some additions ?
@SaifRizwan5 жыл бұрын
yea this lecture is a very good summary of the book.
@johndemeritt34603 жыл бұрын
You might want to look into Burkart Holzman's 1972 book entitled "Social Reality Construction". This is the 1972 second edition. It's a bit easier to read than Berger and Luckmann and takes a slightly different tack on the subject; however, the books agree substantially on HOW social construction works, where Holtzman's work goes more into the POWER dynamic behind social construction.
@returningtoperfection2 жыл бұрын
Reality is not "socially" constructed. Reality is beyond what you believe. How can you believe what is real if what you believe is NOT in alignment with your own reality?
@mt0306 ай бұрын
The view out of nowhere
@muhammadalinaeem1757 Жыл бұрын
Who is here only because he is having an exam in which this question is appearing??
@lukeb80457 жыл бұрын
What is he saying at 9:35? "In other words the human main lane made world is explained in terms that deny its human production." What does that mean?
@steveunemployed69727 жыл бұрын
Archaic language. I bet he doesn't know what was he trying to mean. :P
@GeorgeMaier7 жыл бұрын
It sounds as if he is talking about a particular trait of language where the socially constructed is talked of as if it were not so, as if it were natural. This is equivalent in many ways to Roland Barthes discussion of 'mythology', which is worth looking into - and talks more about the politics of language in this type of disguised use.
@madisonstephens22577 жыл бұрын
Most simply, he is trying to explain the portion of Berger and Luckman's theory that basically says humans construct their reality in such a way that they forget and/or cover up the fact that everything that they know exists because they created it.
@xippetotectheflayedgod61795 жыл бұрын
How does this not lead to moral relativism? If freedom and slavery are both social constructs, why should one prefer one over the other?
@coreolis75 жыл бұрын
What a rousing finale-- his last words defended religion while the rest of the lecture completely undermined it-- LOL
@northchurch7533 жыл бұрын
@@finchbevdale2069 Or maybe it's just what he thinks because he is a Christian himself. We promote intellectual freedom at Prov and encourage students to challenge professors
@roos78863 жыл бұрын
FASCINATING
@PhenomUprising3 жыл бұрын
This should be taught in high school to everyone.
@marcfavell Жыл бұрын
No way I created my own reality and I never trust what people tell me or what I read and question everything I see and want to know how it works why it is as it is and everything about it, I'm definitely treat tv and all media as entertainment even this video .....but I might agree with other people as well as disagree about certain things , I make my own reality I am me, with that said their is only one true reality we all live in 💯 ❤️🇨🇦🍀
@marcfavell Жыл бұрын
With that said the media Government institutional medial complex has made a false reality that SARS-CoV-2 is not that big of a deal when in fact it's our biggest most dangerous obstacle we have faced and a very long time, like since we have been keeping track, and that false reality that has been created world wide has started to fall about more and more people are snapping out of the denial they have been living in 💯🍀❤️🇨🇦
@surpriseimblack3 жыл бұрын
I thought Providence was a Christian University..
@hendrikvanderbreggen4 жыл бұрын
For further thought, see "Deconstructing ‘The Social Construction of Reality’": apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2016/12/deconstructing-social-construction-of.html
@Sarah-fm6ll2 жыл бұрын
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I wouldn't have been able to understand him very well without the transcript. Now I can fully understand what's going on thank you so much!
@lp47559 ай бұрын
The dualism of nature and social that is proposed here has zero theoretical foundation
@josephbardestani42944 жыл бұрын
phenomenology sounds like!
@transientlotus81594 жыл бұрын
Yes!! Berger and Luckmann were highly influenced by the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz and dedicated the first chapter of The Social Construction of Reality to a phenomenological description of everyday social life.
@vfwh6 жыл бұрын
His talk sounds a lot like a sermon to me...
@KingKhan-1235 жыл бұрын
He is trolling the Christians. He said it in the beginning.
@northchurch7533 жыл бұрын
@@finchbevdale2069 I know him personally. He's a Christian
@MbariHogun8 жыл бұрын
How We Created Jesus ~
@mycriticalopinion73136 жыл бұрын
“The sociological question is not what is real nor even how do we know what is real but how does anything come to be accepted as real.” - Dr. Dennis Hebert. Since I was not educated under the social construction reality, which based on this lecture would have us reject the scientific methodology of understanding the natural world, I question this methodology of understanding nature/reality. Sure you can create and indoctrinate followers into believing an interpretation of nature/reality but is it real? A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. What is this scientific methodology of understanding the natural world? 1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation). 2. Make your hypothesis. 3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis. 4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment. 5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment. As explained by this professor, the social construct methodology of understanding the natural world requires you deny there is an observable fixed natural world (Take for example the periodic table of elements. This is an accepted reality but not static we have added elements to this table but it does not negate scientific observation. Regardless of whether people are aware of the periodic table of elements, it does not change the reality that these elements exist. You can’t make up whatever reality you want. It does not matter if you convince large numbers of people to “believe” your vision of reality. We know the earth travels around the sun because of gravity. In the past, the majority of society believed the sun traveled around the earth. This was a social construct that was not scientific and proved to be incorrect. Popular belief does not equate to reality.) The problem with the social construct theory is that it promotes a pseudo reality. It constructs a definition of nature that is subjective which can be redefined as it suits the culture. This is the definition of a cult mentality and is not based in reality. The fact that human beings can be manipulated and can collectively hold false beliefs does not make this reality factual. What a shame that this pseudo reality is being taught in our schools of higher education. We are producing a generation(s) of students who have been indoctrinated into “creating” a cultish false reality. The fact that human beings have a history of cult inspired belief systems and ignorance of science is obvious. This is evidence that humans do not think critically, are easily manipulated on a mass level and are subject to a cult mentality.
@emilio2216 жыл бұрын
Social constructionism never says anything about the validity or facticity of constructs, read a book before you rant like an idiot.
@ccgarciab5 жыл бұрын
That statement was precisely clarifying that sociology is *not* giving any opinion, one way or another, about reality itself. You got it exactly backwards.
@shannonm.townsend12322 жыл бұрын
How did God show up in this lecture?
@joehinman10266 жыл бұрын
What this guy has not balloted to is that sociology is also a socially constructed reality.
@josephbailey42496 ай бұрын
Sociology is so obviously massive tautology. And I have a degree in it.
@sacredmetaphics3 жыл бұрын
Excellent!!!
@paolomath7 жыл бұрын
I cannot find almost anything of interest in this talk. A salad of hyperbolic statements without much grounding, reaching nowhere and mysteriously insisting on god and religion. Or is this maybe a religious university?
@northchurch7533 жыл бұрын
@@finchbevdale2069 Perhaps you could list an example of this, because I actually have been attending Prov for the past 3 years and have not once encountered a scenario where they encourage the violation of the Charter. It's possible you might be thinking of a different school since you refer to the law society of British Columbia, yet this is a Manitoban institution. Given your information, I assume this is the school you're referring to? www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/u-of-m-faculty-joins-fight-against-christian-law-school-256651921.html
@vfwh6 жыл бұрын
"the social world (...) is made up by people". "the physical world (...) is given to humans" Question: are humans a physical entity? Are our brains? Where's the "dependency" line between the physical and the social, exactly?
@blackhole44 жыл бұрын
To be or not to be...
@daveklebt77326 жыл бұрын
not, made nor made up, it accretes over time. that accretion is actually natural as it is built up by natural beings - humans. language games, do not create a "new reality." sociology is now built on frankfurt school critical theory, that is a social construct that they chose. we should be extremely suspicious of these language games.
@hammeddenlange09315 жыл бұрын
So society is a biological object, because we humans are biological? You dont see that as nonsense? For example, a mountain is physical creation, but the term mountain isn't, that is something we have created socially between humans. Socialconstructivism isn't about physical creations, it's about our societal agreed-upon perception of the world.
@apasaja54432 жыл бұрын
It mean stats
@Panauti-i3f6 жыл бұрын
Why is he so nervous?
@metatron48907 жыл бұрын
Human brains, which are the source of consciousness, are social constructs?
@nerdwizard4 жыл бұрын
I don't believe in the "social construction" of anything, as I've always been one to ignore the social world in almost every capacity, nerd that I am, but this was still a nice, informative video.
@marktaylor41774 жыл бұрын
Does a fish believe in water? What is it that leads you to define yourself as a nerd? Is your post (utilising a socially constructed tool of language) an example of where you choose not to ignore the social world? If you ignore the social world, in so far as you may feel you retreat from other humans, it does not mean you avoid being subject to the social construction of your way of understanding the world.
@Sigrdrifaz5 жыл бұрын
Stronger than God said is did God say? doubt is stronger than conviction, just ask Decartes because it's so much easier. If by religion, communism and the functional equivalence of religion are included, then there maybe something to this, but if by religion you mean my religion but not yours then you're not doing sociology your doing zealot postulation posturing as scientific.
@davidrmouch2675 жыл бұрын
His ideas are also the social construct of his predefined reality.
@booyaka8704 жыл бұрын
sexy voice. oO nice presentation. love it ahow
@LeahsLover5 жыл бұрын
"Hammers would not exist without humans" so deep lol
@TeaParty17765 жыл бұрын
See "For The New Intellectual" by Ayn Rand to learn how modern intellectuals attack the intellect.
@pwnership32924 ай бұрын
Dude making all sorts of claims without giving reasons or definitions (many of which seem to be loose). Edit: the longer i listen the more presuppositions he throws out without explanation or justification.
@ChrisDMReloaded2 жыл бұрын
Matrix
@_ata_32 жыл бұрын
It's all very good until he contradicts everything he just said by implying that god is not created by man.
@pukway13858 жыл бұрын
Watch the Ken Gergen video on KZbin for a better "objective construction" LOL
@PqV72MT47 жыл бұрын
One minute in and I disagree with 100 percent of this theory.
@sooyaaa__7626 жыл бұрын
david selig no one cares
@ripplem51216 жыл бұрын
Then you don’t understand his speech. The ideas in the head are not necessary reality even though it’s often perceived as such. For example if someone tell you a lie but you believed it then it became a reality for you.
@oneshot20282 жыл бұрын
5:18- Well, skin colour is NOT continuum with respect to humans. Different races have different skin colours and race is not just about skin colour. It's about physical features. So you are wrong. Nobody IMPOSES the order of race. Human races are natural. Humans did not create race. Race has biological underpinnings as a race is a genetic cluster.
@techampgaming600110 күн бұрын
I think you confusing race (like humans) and race (cultural race). Very different things, and cultural race is for sure created by humans. Indians for example are a race of humans from the Asian region, but their cultural race has been created and identified by the facts of said culture, they eat curry, the women wear a red dot on their heads, etc. Race, gender, these are social constructs that have been created by humans. They don’t exist without dependency. Planets, and other worlds, they are not social constructs because they exist outside our own constructed reality.
@oneshot20285 күн бұрын
@@techampgaming6001 The _'cultural race'_ you mention is more accurately referred to as 'ethnicity,' which is both socially constructed and real, as DNA tests can now determine whether you have Indian ancestry, for example. Race, as a biological category of humans, is not a social construct. Any DNA test from companies like MyHeritage will provide your racial breakdown and confirm your race. Unlike religion or nationality, which are indeed social constructs that you can change, race is not something that can be altered.
@techampgaming60014 күн бұрын
@@oneshot2028 I dont agree and there are many philosophers like Dr. Peterson who would tell you its not. Race and ethnicity are social construct, they are not facts like gravity. African, Indian, these are names that we only use on Earth by society and thus since we only use it here, its a social construct. You can argue DNA all day long, it won change what is it. Whether or not you want to agree or hear it, thats what it is. Read about it, and then we can talk.
@oneshot20284 күн бұрын
@@techampgaming6001 Who is _Dr. Peterson?_ If race isn’t a biological fact, then DNA testing companies wouldn’t be able to identify genetic markers unique to different races. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the greatest geneticist of the latter half of the 20th century, discovered over a dozen human genetic clusters that align perfectly with racial groups. Also, if race were merely a social construct like religion, we should be able to change our race at will, but we can’t. A couple of the same race will always produce children of the same race, which wouldn’t be the case if there were no biological basis for race. Citing philosophers without presenting their arguments and telling me to _"read about it"_ is an appeal to authority and a way to evade the discussion and shift the burden of proof. *PS:* According to your logic "oxygen" would be a social construct since it's only used on Earth by society, but we know for certain that _oxygen_ is not a social construct, which makes your reasoning flawed.🤔
@christopher86164 жыл бұрын
This idea is no longer worth pondering.
@bpansky8 жыл бұрын
This guy seems so moody and grumpy in this video.
@MoleDownunder8 жыл бұрын
So free will and virtue does not exist. Ok. Kill me.
@Malangsufi8 жыл бұрын
What than made you type this if free will was not, at least in partiality, existed if not in an absolute form?
@MoleDownunder8 жыл бұрын
I was being sarcastic.
@michaelmyers32058 жыл бұрын
isn't that the structure/agency problem? Who has a good resolution of that? I like structuration theory by Giddens to explore the problem. But is there anything else/more recent?
@peterwilson42768 жыл бұрын
To believe this stuff, you also have to believe some other things such as the supremacy of the mental to the spiritual, that reality is essentially physical, that the activity of the brain generates consciousness, etc. This is essentally Marxist.
@ccgarciab5 жыл бұрын
Nice jump, you got pretty far away from your starting point in one phrase.
@metamaggot4 жыл бұрын
relativism is anti science..
@johnpacino0077 жыл бұрын
This, is a non starter philosophy. He's critiquing a socially constructed world taken as "real" , using a socially constructed language to tell us so. Why should i believe a "word" of anything he's saying? Language is a social construct right ? But this cat, wants me to take his words has "real" ? Massive own goal, methinks. G
@hssy2jrocker6 жыл бұрын
Like he said. It's not about knowing 'what is real' but about how it comes to be perceived as real.
@sville05134 жыл бұрын
He sounds bored.
@josephbailey42496 ай бұрын
Who wouldn't be bored reciting these truisms. He also seems like an intellectual bully.