From bd8b77bf827a6c66fc4b0b26f05c76079bbc0a6f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Greg Gauthier Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2022 15:46:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] re-date the homo mensura post --- content/post/more-exploration-of-social-objects.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/post/more-exploration-of-social-objects.md b/content/post/more-exploration-of-social-objects.md index 603502b..b665bda 100644 --- a/content/post/more-exploration-of-social-objects.md +++ b/content/post/more-exploration-of-social-objects.md @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ description: Once more, with less feeling... draft: false --- -## Are Social Objects "*Really* Real"? +### Are Social Objects "*Really* Real"? There is an intuitive suspicion expressed in common sense, that certain kinds of objects -- namely, objects that seem to be dependent upon social factors -- aren't "*really*, real". The intuition is a skeptical one arising out of a default common sense empiricism. While there may be some nominal understanding or some social agreement about the reality of things like national borders or governments, they're not "*really*, real" in the sense that, say, an airplane, or a boulder, or a dog, are "*really*, real". In contemporary philosophical literature, this distinction is typically understood as an opposition between the realist and antirealist understanding of objects, and is sometimes justified by adding the qualification "social" to the term object. The qualification is correct, but incomplete. This paper will attempt flesh out the notion of a social object, in order to provide a clearer understanding of what is meant by it, and to provide a means by which we might answer the question of whether so-called social objects are in fact, "*really*, real".