Finale

So, at the beginning of this blog, I said I would go over the role constructions play in our lives, and at the end, decide whether or not the reader, or the other exists, along with other aspects of external reality. Now that this blog is at it's end, I would like to make my statement.

My answer to the question of the existence of the other is that yes, other people exist, and an external reality that is partially knowable exists, but we must always be skeptical about what parts of reality we take to be objective and external, as opposed to subjective and internal.

I believe the other exists because language is a social construct, the reasons for language to be invented all rely on the existence of multiple individuals. My senses tell me as well that the other exists, therefore, until proven otherwise, I will accept that the reader of the blog does actually exist.

As for external reality, I believe in the correspondence theory of truth, where our knowledge is determined by an external, knowable universe. In other words it acts like a mirror, where our knowledge is the mirror that reflects the external reality. However, I believe that reality acts more like a fun-house mirror, where constructions distort and warp the layout of the mirror, making what is reflected blotchy and inaccurate. Saying this though, most of the time a person can still tell what is reflected in a funhouse mirror despite the distortions, so we still know what is being reflected. The only differences is that our funhouse mirrors might not give us a good grasp on the true reality since we can't get past the warping.

The death of a construction

So as this class comes to an end, I wish to bring up the idea of what happens after a construction no longer becomes useful and is removed. Is the person aware of the removal of the construct? Does the construct still exist, but is just not in use? What happens to the ones that are discarded through obsolescence?

First we would have to define what an obsolete construct is. I believe that such a construct would have to be a way of interpreting experiences, thoughts, and meanings that is no longer beneficial for the individual and has  negative impact on one's life. So in other words it must not contribute anything positive to the persons life, and it must have some kind of negative or limiting effect on the person. constructs that don't add anything positive or negative I would consider not obsolete, because there is still no reason why it should be replaced. So if the only kind of construct that would ever be removed is one that does harm or limits, then the best reason for why it would be removed is to create a new construct that is more beneficial and less limiting.

Now, what happens to these constructs once they are replaced? I would argue that the constructs, upon being discarded, are still memorable for a time, and one can re-activate and use the construct at will, but after a long duration happens one tends to forget how to perceive the world from those lenses and one could not slip into that construct as easily. It is like the construct slowly fades away, leaving only the memory of it. I argue this because if someone goes from seeing the world from a racist construction of reality to a more non-discriminatory one, then the individual will remember what it was like to perceive the world through the other old racist lenses for a while, but given a few years, the individual is likely to say "Oh, I can't believe I used to think that way." And trying to use that construct would prove difficult to truly re-enter.

This is only my theory, but if there is a dissenter, let them be known.

The construction of constructions.

Many kinds of Constructivists (Especially radical Constructivists) argue that nothing exists beyond one'sconstruction. However, what exactly is a mental construct? Most would claim that it is a process that our brain uses in order to organize events and to create meaning from them. However, do we have constructs informing us on what mental construct are? If that is the case, then we do not truly objectively know what a construction is since all we have is the construct. Therefore constructions could be anything! If all there is in life is the construction, then we must admit that we have an objective definition of what a constructivism, incidcentally being forced to admit that there is an objective reality, which in turn makes all constructivists adopt a realist standpoint. Take that Radical constructivism, includingyou, von Glaserfeld!

On one's namesake

So, this was an idea that I toyed with throughout the weekend. Can a name construct an individual? For example, one continually hears the phrase "Oh, he looks like a Dave" or "Wow, I you just seem like a Griffin." I am starting to wonder how one's name influences one's personality and demeanor. This isn't only with first names. One's last name carries a lot of power. Being a Kennedy can influence the development of one's sense of being, or one's personality. Therefore, can it not be guessed that the name "John" or "Ashley" influences one's development as well?

"Bring honor to the family name!" and "The (Insert last name here) come from a proud, noble lineage" can certainly fill one's being with a sense of honor or purpose, but what does the first name bring to the construction of the self? I would argue that the first name can determine how a person acts by molding their personality to the person's own expectations on how a David, or a Susan should actually act. They get this impression through indirect societal standards.

For example, one imagines the name of Albert to be a very intelligent name because of it's relation to Albert Einstein. Therefore a person named Albert might try to do well in school to 'live up to' his namesake.

This is just a brain thought of mine. If you wish to critique it, please do.