I agree. Yuval Harari’s test for whether something is real is to ask if it can suffer. In his opinion, if it cannot suffer, it’s not real. So a nation cannot suffer, a religion cannot be offended etc etc.
-
-
Replying to @nublamohamed @G_S_Bhogal
I think Reza Aslan does a lot by way of demistifying what is and isn’t a social construct too in his latest book, God: a human history. But then Karen Armstrong in her book, A history of myth, says that myths / social constructs serve a function in society
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nublamohamed @G_S_Bhogal
Personally I’m undecided. But I think the minute we bring down one social construct, we’ll replace it with another. So people who work on creating and solidifying positive constructs that benefit society (human rights etc) are doing an important job.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nublamohamed
Many good points there. Personally, I think that the fewer social constructs, the better, because social constructs can be manipulated for political purposes. I prefer as much of reality to be rendered in facts as possible, because facts remain facts regardless of what we believe
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
True. But I do wonder sometimes if reality can also be manipulated, or if it’s even palatable. I take greater comfort in a good novel than the world news. But then again, what good does escapism do? In large quantities it’s as criminal as apathy. Still, necessary for wellbeing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Sure, I prefer dreams to reality too. But they each have their domains. Dreams are nourishing, but reality is needed to create a world that allows us to dream. Problems arise when these two magisteria overlap, when science is confused for art, and imagination for truth.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.