Hi:
Why do I find it easy to become impatient with academics who persist in
according warrant to the use of social constructions which bear the label reality,
objective, true, etc.?
What is so difficult about accepting Rorty's claim that anything that we can
discuss by reference to true or objective propositions can be equally usefully
discussed by reference to socially validated constructions?
Do I remain consistent with a broad constructivism when I become impatient
with putatively educated people who construe themselves members of a Serbian
ethnic group or members of an Muslim ethnic group and then insist on the reality
of that categorization to the extent that they are willing to die or to kill
others in order to remain so categorized?
Would any of our colleagues promote the proposition that claiming membership
in an ethnic group represents an objective claim???
Jim Mancuso
DARAGHnJAN@aol.com wrote:
> Just to say I agree with Jim Mancuso's comment on concepts - it's just that
> I'm surrounded by business academics who think a concept is something nice and
> clean and 'rational' (whatever that means) - something divorced from the
> process of cognition - or, if it has something to do with cognition, then it
> is certainly not *personal* in any way. That would undermine the 'objectivity'
> of the discourse ...
>
> Daragh O'Reilly
> Lecturer in Marketing
> Bradford Management Centre
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.capital.net/~soialban/index.html
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American history and heritage.
--------------3625A4198F4BDA022806DB80
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Hi:
Why do I find it easy to become impatient with academics
who persist in according warrant to the use of social constructions which
bear the label reality, objective, true, etc.?
What is so difficult about accepting Rorty's claim
that anything that we can discuss by reference to true or objective
propositions can be equally usefully discussed by reference to socially
validated constructions?
Do I remain consistent with a broad constructivism
when I become impatient with putatively educated people who construe
themselves members of a Serbian ethnic group or members of an
Muslim ethnic group and then insist on the reality of that categorization
to the extent that they are willing to die or to kill others in order to
remain so categorized?
Would any of our colleagues promote the proposition
that claiming membership in an ethnic group represents an objective
claim???
Jim Mancuso
DARAGHnJAN@aol.com wrote:
Just to say I agree with Jim Mancuso's comment on
concepts - it's just that
I'm surrounded by business academics who think a concept is something
nice and
clean and 'rational' (whatever that means) - something divorced
from the
process of cognition - or, if it has something to do with cognition,
then it
is certainly not *personal* in any way. That would undermine the 'objectivity'
of the discourse ...
Daragh O'Reilly
Lecturer in Marketing
Bradford Management Centre
--
James C. Mancuso Dept. of
Psychology
15 Oakwood Place University
at Albany
Delmar, NY 12054 1400 Washington
Ave.
Tel: (518)439-4416 Albany, NY 12222
Mailto:mancusoj@capital.net
http://www.capital.net/~soialban/index.html
A website dedicated to information on Italian-
American
history and heritage.
--------------3625A4198F4BDA022806DB80--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%