Construct: (1) To build or form by
putting together parts; devise.
(2) An image, idea,
or theory, esp a complex one formed of
simpler elements.
Many times, when I have been in an
intellectual discussion with another Homo Sapien, they have said,
“Ah, but Samuel, that is merely a human construct.” After saying
this, they seem to nod wisely – as if they are forged, from the top
of their head to the soles of their feet, of sage wisdom. I’ve
begun to feel aghast at such a comment. In itself, it only achieves a
modicum of awareness: that of spotting. Anyone can spot; it doesn’t
require a genius-level intellect to do so.
Intellectual spotting has its place –
please, don’t get me wrong – yet, it can be used incorrectly by
popinjays who are out to look smart, despite their fallacious
reasoning. For instance, when I once debated the notion of infinite
regress (the idea that the universe has no “start”, as the idea
of a first cause would always require a cause to come before it), I
was greeted with a curious reply. In this conversation, I stated
that either the universe has a prime mover or no prime mover. His
reply was that neither was possible: his reasoning was based upon the
notion that both ideas were merely human constructs.
When I have discussed theology with
agnostics and atheists, I am often told – yes, told – that
religion has no value, as it is based upon false constructs. I
concede that the thought has crossed my mind many times.
Nevertheless, as British society has a Judeo-Christian intellectual
heritage, and as so many minds were influenced by “mere”
Christianity. It really is the philosopher's duty to see things as a
whole, and to be Janus-faced.
Yes, the philosopher must look
backwards as well as forwards; the philosopher must live in the now,
the yesterday and the future. We must climb the ladder and kick it
away afterwards. Yet we must recognise that the ladder allowed us to
gain ground, and that ladder had its uses. The Bible may or may not
be true – the evidence is, I’m sad to say, lacking – but there
are some magnificently wise passages in there (as well as some very
foolish ones, too). I wouldn’t, however, reject it per se, and I
wouldn’t reject it because it is, in all probability, a human
construct.
However, if there is no God, then the
world truly is comprised of human constructs. Mathematics, poetry,
art...all the beauty, all of the world is viewed through the prism of
human thought; as such, without the ability to create such
constructs, such models of thought, there would be nothing of any
intellectual consequence. Don’t misunderstand me, please. The
physical reality would be there, but the very words we give to our
physical reality wouldn’t. Without humanity, and without the
ability to create such constructs, the universe ceases to exist. The
abstract world cannot exist without the concrete world, but the
concrete world can exist without the abstract.
Moreover, if we apply David Hume’s
sense-centric Bundle Theory – which I'll explain in a moment - to
humanity, we learn that humans are in fact, a human construct. When
humans use the pronoun, “I”, what is this “I” they refer to?
In essence, this “I” is physical; the human physique has features
– better known as properties. In turn, the eyes, ears, voice, hair
(or lack of it) constitute the physical appearance of an “I”. If
we try to imagine a human without properties, they are no longer
human; it is impossible to have a human without properties.
Nevertheless, It is quite ironic that humans are constructed by
themselves.
Furthermore, it requires us - as
sentient beings - to recognise the fact humans have (probably)
created all modes of thought. As such, the only value these modes of
thought, or, more succinctly, constructs have are twofold: firstly,
to the individual; secondly, to the society.
Thus, we should come to at least one
conclusion, or possibly two. And what are they? Well, it is only
useful to recognise an idea is a human construct if you are arguing
against a dogmatic theist, who claims that everything is a gift from
a barbaric, sadistic deity, obsessed with having mere humans
prostrate to His every whim; secondly, given that we should recognise
the notion that all ideas are human constructs, it doesn’t cheapen
one’s argument one iota when a smug, pseudo-intellectual attempts
to appear clever when spotting something which, to be honest, is
perfectly obvious.
Samuel Mack-Poole
