Subject: Re: Crucial Questions on Life Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 21:16:08 +0200 <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> <P>Hi Erik,</P> <P>I thought my point was clear: As a sociologist, I am not very interested in "pure" philosophical rhetorics on "mind" or "thoughts" or "consciousness". Dennett is. I guess I also wrote that I'm close to relational realism when it comes to sociologizing. I also wrote that Dennett, when it comes to sociology, is an ignoramus. And no, he doesn't take the problem of social reality seriously. The primary problem he takes seriously is, I think, whether it is possible to build a machine with total consciousness.</P> <P>Now with regard to the question of social reality being a construct, I think that Husserlians and relational realists would point fingers at each other and exchange angry words, but then that leads to another long debate beyond the limits of Dennett's materialism. I just wanted to help Berk out.</P> <P>Emrah Goker, Department of Sociology, Columbia University<BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: Erik Hoogcarspel <JEHMS-AT-KABELFOON.NL> <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu <DIV></DIV>>To: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Crucial Questions on Life <DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 17:37:47 +0100 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Well, Emrah I disagree totally wit you here. Dennett is just a <DIV></DIV>>simple <DIV></DIV>>mind who tries to cut the edges by ignoring the problems. I don't <DIV></DIV>>understand why you as a sociologist, don't look at things from a <DIV></DIV>>sociological point of view: reality is a social construct and not an <DIV></DIV>>object-to-subject event. Luhman f.i. realies heavily on Husserls <DIV></DIV>>phenomenology and maybe for a good reason, because Husserl takes the <DIV></DIV>>problem seriously. He's a bit more subtle then guys like Dennett, <DIV></DIV>>who <DIV></DIV>>just explaines away what's at stake.If reality is a social construct <DIV></DIV>>than it's made possible by language and if one wants to look into <DIV></DIV>>that, <DIV></DIV>>one could turn to semiotics, where the object is a signifier for a <DIV></DIV>>lot <DIV></DIV>>of conventions like 'me', 'mind', 'image', etc. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>erik <DIV></DIV>></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html> ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005