Debunking an academic argument regarding social constructivism
**DISCLAIMER:** This is an actual argument I heard at my university.
Refutation: For something to be real it only needs to be independent of perception and as there are entities that will exist under the absence of perception we can affirm that certain entities do exist.
|
1
point
i dont think you quite understood the argument, heres my take: lets take a human being for example, lets call them john... now you and me might see the human being known as john... but that being and everything that it does depends on the interaction of single cells in its body and neurons in its brain... and those things depend and are essentially just made of even smaller chemical and physical reactions... however i would also say the argument isnt completely correct since there must be a smallest thing... and it does objectivly exist |
