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.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
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.
"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.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
DSM drama
So, with our discussion of the construction of mental illness, there is a fascinating article by psychology today on the subject of the changes that will be made within the new DSM-5. Since some would argue that mental illness is purely a construction, then these changes are a simple reconstruction of mental illness. If there is more to mental illness than just construction, where mental illness does correspond to some kind of reality, then these changes could be catastrophic.
For example, classifying grief as clinical depression implies that there is something wrong, or bad for grieving. By claiming this, grief for a lost spouse, parent, or child can now be considered a mental illness. This brings up interesting questions on what a normal functional human. Is a normal functional human someone who is always content and happy? Or is a functional human someone who experiences sorrow and crippling despair along with happiness?
By constructing this new definition of depression, the DSM is claiming that experiencing grief is not a proper function of human behavior. What are other's opinions on this?
For example, classifying grief as clinical depression implies that there is something wrong, or bad for grieving. By claiming this, grief for a lost spouse, parent, or child can now be considered a mental illness. This brings up interesting questions on what a normal functional human. Is a normal functional human someone who is always content and happy? Or is a functional human someone who experiences sorrow and crippling despair along with happiness?
By constructing this new definition of depression, the DSM is claiming that experiencing grief is not a proper function of human behavior. What are other's opinions on this?
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Constructivist magazine starring our wonderful professor.
So, I am doing a project on constructivistic psychotherapy, and as I was researching this topic, I stumbled upon a magazine devoted to philosophical constructivism. And in one of these journals, they have an article written by our incredibly inspiring professor. He posted an excerpt of this article on his blog, but here one can read the full thing. Now, in order to read it, one needs an account, but one can choose to have a free account. Also, there is a response to our professor's article as well which has some interesting insights, which one should read as well.
Constructions of Mental illness
So, if any of you haven't heard, the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the DSM-5 has finally been finalized! This is the therapists and psychiatrists bible, as it describes the symptoms and proper diagnostic criteria of mental disorders, and the previous DSM-4 was severely flawed. However, it seems that not everybody is that excited about this, as shown here. A lot of criticism has been running around about how the DSM will only benefit the pharmaceutical companies and that it will have no impact on psychologists or therapists in any manner whatsoever. A quote that properly sums up the criticism was released on the blog Mindhacks, where I first heard of the release:
"It’s arcane, contradictory and talks about invisible entities which no-one can really prove. Yes folks, the new psychiatric bible has been finalised." (article can be found here.)
There is a lot of debate in the mental health field about what exactly are mental illnesses. Some argue that mental illness is an objective part of reality, just as real as any other illness such as cancer or the common cold. This is called the medical model. In this model, there is an objective existence of depression, psychosis, and autism. The DSM promotes this model. However, some reject this idea, claiming that mental illness is actually a social construct. Some people argue it in degrees, saying that the way we view normality and abnormality influences what we classify as abnormal, but that some of these people actually do have a mental illness. On the other hand, some people completely reject the idea of mental illness at all. One psychiatrist, by the name of Thomas Szasz wrote a book called 'The Myth of Mental Illness.' It is exactly as it sounds. Szasz argued that mental illness was only a societal construct and that psychiatry was a pseudoscience because of it. Although I disagree with him, he did revolutionize the psychological world with his work and brought into light many flaws with the traditional view of the world.
Szasz would have fought tooth and nail against this new DSM, for it tries to pass off a social construct as an objective reality which only ends up hurting those labeled as abnormal. Although I believe the DSM is flawed and will probably always be flawed, I would not agree with Szasz that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. I would argue that the DSM highlights the typical symptoms shown in people who are unhappy, maladaptive to the environment, or a danger to themselves and others. I would not force such labels on anyone, but I would follow to some extent the advice that such a manual can offer me about how to treat such people.
"It’s arcane, contradictory and talks about invisible entities which no-one can really prove. Yes folks, the new psychiatric bible has been finalised." (article can be found here.)
There is a lot of debate in the mental health field about what exactly are mental illnesses. Some argue that mental illness is an objective part of reality, just as real as any other illness such as cancer or the common cold. This is called the medical model. In this model, there is an objective existence of depression, psychosis, and autism. The DSM promotes this model. However, some reject this idea, claiming that mental illness is actually a social construct. Some people argue it in degrees, saying that the way we view normality and abnormality influences what we classify as abnormal, but that some of these people actually do have a mental illness. On the other hand, some people completely reject the idea of mental illness at all. One psychiatrist, by the name of Thomas Szasz wrote a book called 'The Myth of Mental Illness.' It is exactly as it sounds. Szasz argued that mental illness was only a societal construct and that psychiatry was a pseudoscience because of it. Although I disagree with him, he did revolutionize the psychological world with his work and brought into light many flaws with the traditional view of the world.
Szasz would have fought tooth and nail against this new DSM, for it tries to pass off a social construct as an objective reality which only ends up hurting those labeled as abnormal. Although I believe the DSM is flawed and will probably always be flawed, I would not agree with Szasz that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. I would argue that the DSM highlights the typical symptoms shown in people who are unhappy, maladaptive to the environment, or a danger to themselves and others. I would not force such labels on anyone, but I would follow to some extent the advice that such a manual can offer me about how to treat such people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)