What can't be explained away by saying "it's just a social construct"

What can't be explained away by saying "it's just a social construct"

Obviously things like physics, math and chemistry; can't just be explained away. It's the objective understanding of the universe and the objects that humans can interact with. But you can almost say "it's just our perspective" I don't think that's right. This is really troubling for me, I'm unsure about what we should even consider worthwhile. I don't honestly know much about philosophy so I wanted to ask Veeky Forums

Also is this way of thinking wrong?
>culture is a social construct
>so it doesn't matter
>it's just neurological pathways shared by a group of people(entities) within a period of time in a specific place
>it's nothing more than ideas that die with the host people
>we don't need culture to survive

Math is literally a human construct.
It's an abstract tool we use to explain the world around us. Math on it's own without human interpretation means nothing.

Well everything reduces to biology if you want to be very reductionistic.

But what I gather, at least from I know of social constructivism in general, is that the nurture aspect of society is something that can be changed presumably for the better over the course of generations without a problem.

>objective understanding
Wew lad

>culture is a social construct
true
>so it doesn't matter
opinion
>it's just neurological pathways shared by a group of people(entities) within a period of time in a specific place
a little more complex than that but sure, true
>it's nothing more than ideas that die with the host people
false, media contains culture, in fact it could be said that media is culture and you can't have one without the other
>we don't need culture to survive
true

anything that contains an abstraction could be said to be a social construct. the expression x+1 contains a term that requires culture to give context, even if the term itself represents a objectively existing physical object or phenomena.

>Biology
Lmfao take this conspiracy shit to

The things you decide are valuable are worthwhile.
[spoiler]Even though it would be impossible to give things value without the social constructs instilled into your psyche at a young age.[/spoiler]

That said, memes are the building blocks of human thought and common to all forms of life capable of interpreting their surroundings and copying behavior. So if you want something to believe in, the DNA of the soul is a pretty safe bet.

"means" is a social construct

Well meme'd.

Is that true? Couldn't another entity come to the same conclusions we do assuming it's not limited
So we can break everything down to biology because we are in all reality trapped by our limits?

And the idea of social constructionism is just a more general version of what Karl Marx thought about incentives in work and how we view our fellow human?

>opinion
I can see that
>media contains culture
So media is just the tool too spread and preserve culture? The entity that can understand the and interpret the media is what manifests the culture?

>biology is a conspiracy
Is this true? Aren't we limited by biology in our universe. If that's the case wouldn't you say that biology is real. Obviously I could just say "this is a simulation, we are limited by the simulation, why are we limited? Because whatever instance that made the simulation is limited, in that case why is it limited?"

>the soul of the DNA
but isn't the idea of the soul just a social construct, I guess you explained that too me in the post

In the end I don't think it matter because our subjective understanding of the universe suggests it doesn't matter at all on the end.

>culture is a social construct
>so it doesn't matter
Really now, this is just an absolutely retarded thing to think.

>And the idea of social constructionism is just a more general version of what Karl Marx thought

Has nothing to do with Marx at all, in fact it has more to do with Rousseau than him tbqh.

Rousseau is the guy who argued that humans are literally *biologically* speaking, good moral agents from birth, but our social institutions corrupt and destroy us, hence we behave immorally. The logical consequence of that argument is essentially utopianism(e.g make the institutions perfect, and humans will be perfect).

The first time I had heard about our morals being corrupted by society was from Karl Marx in my last year of highschool.

I learned about Rousseau I vaguely remember him having ideas like that. Thanks for elaborating with that, his ideas seem too fit better with the social construct idea.

But are humans even inherently good? Wouldn't It be safer to say humans are inherently animalistic and have a strong sense of survival. Are the people of Sentinelese Island corrupted by there own society is that why they attack outsiders? Or are they just scared and want to live?

It's a matter of opinion, which is why there is a division between nature and nature to begin with.

I tend to err on the side of skepticism against claims that only one side is correct.

nature and nurture*

>culture is a social construct
Correct
>so it doesn't matter
Partial credit. It matters in the sense that it is the shared traditions and values of a group, however many people believe traditiond and values to be static, correct, and views by which to live, which is where the spooks come in.

I think this debate about social construct and nature/nurture is pointless. Because I'm the end isn't morals and what is right also a social construct? So there must be a foundation these ideas were built on, and if it isn't social then it must be natural. Or that's my conclusion, it could be base on the most basic principle any human can understand and that is you die.

Can you explain "spooks" to me. I saw it once with a picture of this guy
Also aren't values and traditions kinda not needed, they serve no purpose to a life form that lives to reproduce. In that cause wouldn't culture just be a pointless endeavour too struggle over, look what culture has created nuclear weapons that can kill every human on this problem. I guess if you go further it doesn't matter when the universe comes to a static conclusion.

On Veeky Forums 'spook' is just a meme, like 'cuck', that doesn't mean anything and the user writing it thinks it makes him sound cool (it doesn't).

The picture is of Max Stirner, philosopher of egoism. In his parlance 'spook' is a thing like religion or nationalism, that makes you behave against your best interests.

>What can't be explained away by saying "it's just a social construct"

This isn't an explanation,it's just a description. If you ask me to explain a chemical reaction, I can't reply by saying "well, it's just atoms". Something being socially constructed tells you literally nothing about it, beyond the fact that humans interact with it in some way.

I was using spook in the sense of a specter, something that is not a tangible concept and exists only as a concept in the brain but still influences thoughts and actions. My definition of traditions as a spook are things that were done by people in the past that after time and with enough people following those actions solidified as a cultural value, a static form but culture is a dynamic process that is constantly changing with the times. My argument was that people who claim tradition or values as the reason to do something or use it as justification for their actions, i.e. traditional marriage or traditional gender roles, are influenced by what Stirner defined as spooks.
No memeing intended.

But if something is socially constructed doesn't that make it nothing more than human dribble. You don't need to explain something that is just abstract thought created by entity's