没有什么比我们是一个国家而不是另一个国家的公民这一事实更能影响我们的生活了。我们生活的国家所承认的权利和所提供的机会塑造了我们的生活。但这些事实和事情有多真实呢?没有人类的信仰，没有人类的社会，就不会有国家，不会有公民身份，不会有金钱，也不会有机会。我们的生活是建立在本体论的琐碎之上吗?Ken and John discuss the metaphysics of the social with famed philosopher John Searle, author ofMaking the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization．This program wasrecorded liveat the Marsh theatre in Berkeley.
金钱、初入社交圈的舞会、大学，甚至是国家——从某种意义上说，每一个都是一种共同的幻觉，一种根植于某些习俗和规则的社会现实。这样的社会现实可以决定我们如何看待我们周围的世界，反过来，影响我们的选择和决定。考虑到社会现实的重要性，约翰和肯讨论了人类如何可能仅仅通过认同它们的存在而实现这些事情。约翰提出社会现实产生于自然世界，但肯对约翰的还原论表示怀疑。
约翰·塞尔(John Searle)加入了讨论，他提出，社会现实之所以存在，正是因为我们把它们表现为存在，既存在于我们的头脑中，也通过言语行为的使用。在Searle看来，无论何时，只要有一套带有标准期望的结构化程序——从国会会议到兄弟会聚会——就有可能创造一种社会现实。Ken质疑语言在这一过程中的必要性，他想知道其他动物是否可能通过共同的心理表征拥有更原始的社会现实形式。Searle强调，我们赋予物体功能的能力，以及遵守违背我们直接意愿的惯例的能力，似乎将我们与其他动物区分开来。这些人类的能力使我们能够将权力、义务和权利委托给个人或机构，使我们的精神表征在社会领域具有实际基础。
人类文明在其存在的过程中发生了变化，随着这些变化，曾经普遍存在的社会现实消失了，新的社会现实取而代之。他们三人考虑了未来可能的社会现实，以及社会制度改变我们生活的复杂方式，然后又被我们对它们的评价所改变。Searle认为，最有效的制度根本不会公开宣扬它们是社会建构的这一事实。
Comments(1)
Harold G. Neuman
Saturday, March 12, 2022 -- 8:06 AM
In researching the subjectIn researching the subject (reality) and the shows devoted to it, it was found that reality exists in many forms. As that is the case, it is a fertile topic. I have some familiarity with Searle and his work. And a hint of the levels-of-reality also mentioned in the blog archive. I have heard Searle both praised and reviled., Am not really interested in either stance or reasons there for. He systematized social foundations for one sort of reality, and wrote and lectured about his findings and theses. Nothing wrong with that. Someone else could have done as well.
So, reality is much like truth. It may be self-evident; found or made. Whether the found and/or made varieties are useful depends on who believes them; whether there are stakeholders; and, moreover, whether there are large sums of money involved. All of these criteria need not be met, but it sure does help. Religious beliefs and political ideologies are, generally, found or made. Some may claim that democracy is a 'natural' state, but any belief about it is ultimately based on freedom and self-determination---I submit these were found and/or made; never were they self-evident. And, whichever the case, those who claim self-evidence, probably had vested interests, a priori. I have asserted something I call contextual reality. This accounts for, encompasses most of Searles' designations. It also takes into consideration mass and popular culture and the oppressive pandemia of extremism, under which some feel compelled to risk life and limb, in order to gain group acceptance (no fear!). Contextual reality is, I claim, forever changing and eminently changeable.
I also think, though have no means of proof, that John Searles' ideas stoked admirers and detractors alike, and that he knew, at least intuitively that they would do so.. His admirers were agents-of-change themselves, believing we should know all we could know about societal change---how and why it happens. The detractors, status quo seekers, feared social change and upheaval, knowing further that such forces could be unpredictable and disruptive. It was not the first time a philosopher had scared people.
Well. You may believe as you will. We are in the age of contextual reality. Postmodernism is one outcome of that diaspora. Extremist views and recklessness are others. Thanks.