But even the knowledge itself is socially constructed. If there were no humans they'd be no knowledge.
Huh? You could. Once you understand that 'fascist' means 'cat lover' to someone else, a perfectly coherent conversation about what it means to be a cat lover can happen. If you insist they really mean what you mean by fascist, just confusion will ensue.
-
-
However, this is unlikely to happen whilst using 'knowledge' to refer to facts is quite standard.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No you couldn't. Meanings are social, not individual. That's why just calling someone a fascist because you disagree with them is wrong. Fascist, and cat lover have social meanings, and you can't just use the meaning that works for you.
-
On a broader scale, yes. For the purpose of a coherent conversation, you can exchange any word for any other word as long as both people know what is meant. Being willing to do this is often what stops a conversation stalling on definitions.
-
For example, if someone insists that I am a feminist and I insist that I am not, the conversation can go on & on about definitions and never get to the discussion of gender equality. We can prevent this by agreeing to disagree on what a feminist is & talking about gender equality
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.