You and I exist. We are particulars, to use the philosophical term. On the other hand, what we construct has no existence. It is, IMO, simply a way of classifying things, concepts, ideas, etc.

For instance, some sexologists say that there are 5 sexes (others that there is only one sex - female). Well, how many sexes are there: 1, 2. 5, or some other number? My response would be: We can construct sex differences in any manner which makes sense. Perhaps all of these schemes would be appropriate in different contexts.

Truth, in my view, is just a word for socially constructed knowledge (not generally defined the same as a fact, by the way). Whatever societies or groups construct as truth is truth. How's that for relativism? lol.

Not to be glib, but, IMO, categories are undeniable until one denies them. It is the power embedded in our narratives and categories which discourages people from recognizing that they have no inherent reality.

>>For the purposes of nominalism and STRICTLY for the purposes of nominalism, we're denying that visible light is naturally divided into the "colors of the rainbow." We're saying that humans make those divisions, and they could as easily have held orange to be a different shade of red as labelled it another color lying between red and yellow. You see? We could have called it "reddish-yellow" if we had cared to.<<

Precisely. However, I would remain agnostic on the issue of whether the EMS exists.

Objectivity is determined through the use of shared methodologies within a scientific community. A growing tendency among many scientists (not only social scientists either) is to move away from realism and positivism to postpositivism, i.e., the recognition that more than different methodologies might lead to very different conclusions concerning the same subject matter.

>>It is like saying, "I don't recognize color(not race but light property)", this does not change the fact that certain objects reflect light waves that are different in a manner that we process as color. Categories are just that, they are categories and the only invalidation of them is to say that they have no truth value and don't correspond to reality. If they do correspond to real things then they cannot be denied as a category, but they can be attacked as a less useful category. They do have reality as concepts though.<<

The properties are the attributes of particulars. However, the names we give to particular colors or color schemes are social constructions.

I accept the existence of particular realities, such as you or I. "Reality," however, is merely an abstraction. Realists and idealists have argued for millennia about the nature of reality. Nominalists, on the other hand, simply reject metaphysics, or speculative philosophy, altogether as being a thoroughly untenable concept and without convincing evidence to support its existence.

Which set of concepts should we accept as real? Western capitalist hegemony or Islamist legislative (shariah) hegemony? Who gets to decide which is real?

I am a critical poststructuralist. "Nihilism" is a term open to many definitions; and there is no agreed-upon standard for placing people under its rubric.

--------

>>However, in recent years (during my lifetime) this has changed and now the new standard is called Estuary English, which is a cockney derived low class street dialect, and many BBC reporters speak it, as does the majority of south-east of England (area around London).<<

I have noticed the change watching BBC America (a cable channel).

A similar popularism has affected U.S. broadcast journalism. At one time, the standard for pronunciation was so-called General American (aka American Standard) - a modification of the American English commonly spoken in the upper Midwest. (It is what I learned and used in radio news once upon a time.) However, regional variants have been increasingly encouraged among both anchors and reporters. These days, General American sounds kind of stuffy to the average listener or viewer.
------------------
>>Reality is simply the summation of all particulars. It cannot be dismissed as an abstraction as we all live in it.<<

Whose summation of particulars? Are we not then left with the sloppy subjective idealist argument that we each all have our own realities?

I see no evidence that systems of thought exist. I cannot see them, taste them, or touch them. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the one who claims them as realities.

The term nihilist is defined variously. For instance, Nietzsche has been referred to in this thread, and many people consider him to be a nihilist. However, most continental philosophers no longer use that term to define him.

I do not deny all truth. I simply see it as constructed - as without permanent grounding. Some might call that nihilism; others might not.

Nietzsche was closer to being an existentialist than a poststructuralist or nominalist. In effect, Sartre, Camus, etc. replaced Nietzsche's "creativity" with a search for meaning. However, either way, one is required to adopt a kind of essentialism or realism

The approach I use is called "critical poststructuralism." It is a combination of Marxist, neo-Marxist, and post-Marxist approaches with poststructuralism. I agree with Foucault that power is situated in all relational contexts. However, from my perspective, the narratives of those who are in power are the ones most worthy of concern and "deconstruction."

The approach I use is called "critical poststructuralism." It is a combination of Marxist, neo-Marxist, and post-Marxist approaches with poststructuralism. I agree with Foucault that power is situated in all relational contexts. However, from my perspective, the narratives of those who are in power are the ones most worthy of concern and "deconstruction."

The approach I use is called "critical poststructuralism." It is a combination of Marxist, neo-Marxist, and post-Marxist approaches with poststructuralism. I agree with Foucault that power is situated in all relational contexts. However, from my perspective, the narratives of those who are in power are the ones most worthy of concern and "deconstruction."

Many people who regard themselves as belonging to an oppressed population will attempt to find a way to distinguish themselves (speech, mannerisms, interests, etc.) from others not in their reference group.

The idea of social construction is a very interesting one. It's clear that AS is more than a construction; there are physical differences in the brain, but it might exist as one in varying levels.

IMO, AS is a construction. However, the apparently similar attributes in different persons, which have been selectively placed under its rubric are not necessarily constructions (especially if they are neurological).

Logical paradox Wrote:

I think it may be possible for AS/autism to become a model for introversion, and extend beyond the boundaries of AS/autism. If we create distinct artistic styles, some NTs may like the style for it's introversion/monotrophism. That might open the eyes of some, make them question whether theres only one way to live. At that point the physical differences in the brain may become less important.

Yes, I would suspect that people with AS would score high on the introversion scale of the Meyers-Briggs test.

Similarly, persons with schizoid personality disorder are frequently INTPs or INTJs (the "I" for introversion).

For instance, what is the difference between AS (once called schizoid disorder in children) and schizoid personality disorder? If a person's symptoms originate in early childhood, considering that schizoid personality disorder typically develops in late adolescence or early adulthood, the schizoid diagnosis is probably doubtful. If, even worse, one was diagnosed as autistic and later changed to schizophrenia, the effect could be disastrous affect on a child in terms of medical treatments.

When I say that universals, concepts, and abstractions do not exist, I do not deny that certain conditions (whether a result of nature and/or nurture) influence people in ways they may define as positive or negative. I am suggesting that the manner in which we organize apparently similar attributes of individuals under categories or names (like AS or the war on terror) is an act of will and intentionality.

We can reject the categories (universals or abstractions) as "real things" while acknowledging the attributes and how they interface with social experience.

I am a consistent nominalist on such issues. IMO, there is no such thing as "the world." It is merely a construction. The universe, a particular nation, a specific organization or group, etc. are abstractions and nothing more.

For instance, many political elites have elected to construct a world based on the assumption of a war on terror, i.e., that universals such as terrorism, counterterrorism, freedom, etc. actually exist. The advantage of taking poststructuralist, and other nominalist, standpoints is that I can, if I so choose, reject these universals, these social constructions, in favor of others of my choosing (just as the universals proposed by the American Psychiatric Association can be dismissed at will).

To me, poststructuralism is an immensely liberating perspective. The elites hold onto their power through the spell of realism, viz., the lie that universals are objectively real and cannot be challenged. When groups (people who share common goals and values) elect to challenge them, they have often instituted significant social changes.

Anthropomorphizing, or reifying, our lexicons is merely a way in which we maintain an imaginary sense of order in our environments. IMO, it is fine to do so, as long as we don't take our narratives too seriously.

Has anyone given thought to Michel Foucault's concept of social construction? So, to Foucault, both sex (male<->female) and sexual orientation (heterosexual<->homosexual) were constructions and were maintained by those in positions of power. In other words, sex and sexual orientation do not exist, per se. They are, rather, simply names used, as part of our social narratives or discourses, to reinforce existing power structures.

Similarly, there has been considerable debate over AS. Is it high-functioning autism? Is it a separate condition on the spectrum of pervasive developmental "disorders"? Currently, the American Psychiatric Association is considering placing AS under a new category of Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders in its upcoming DSM-V codebook.

From this standpoint, AS, like sex and sexual orientation, does not exist. It is merely a way in which people with high power statuses categorize (label) certain members of a population. Hence, whether AS is a disorder or merely an example of genetic diversity depends on one's perspective. Since one is dealing merely with words, there is no way to objectively address this issue.

I don't believe in reincarnation, but I will in my next life.

Copyright © 2002- Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. All rights reserved.