But back to you worries about the deterministic
nature of existence.
First, social constructivism is a
psychological explanation for human assessment of reality based on a broad and
catholic discourse creating an intellectual frame for the ‘real’ world. The
obvious weakness is that historically is did not find solid evidence for its discourse.
It can only keep pace with the evolving scientific revelations of the cosmos
and its interpretation... think Thomas Kuhn and his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The roots of this concept (SC) are found in the child’s development and
its private need to understand its world...and so it is with the world itself
as humanity ‘grows up’. (I am especially interested in this connection).
Since, I’m sure we agree that truly
nothing is absolute, this is probably the best we can hope for; a perception of
reality based not only on our best interpretation of the material universe but
one backed up by scientific rigour and sceptical thought...and understanding
our place on the continuum of intellectual progress.
Second, why should we find this mechanistic label untoward? Surely if it is comfort we want in our fleeting lives we
have at our disposal the profound beauty of art in its many forms which we can
share with those closest to us. Yet isn’t it also true that the progressive understanding
of both the cosmos and the human psyche are in themselves a source of endless
fascination and satisfaction?
Perhaps Ruby, buried in the subconscious
is an Aristotelian hierarchy which places conditions of human life ranging from
“dire” to “perfection” and we can imagine an ideal world and therefore we do. In
line with this, what distinguishes humanity from other mammals is a quest or longing
for betterment, this emotive drive carries a largesse of hope, a thing which is
completely absent in the analysis of the goings on in the material universe.