Critical theory may *say* that there is nothing outside language, that language creates reality, but it cannot *tell* us that, because it is not true. Even on the basis that the purpose of language was to persuade, it remains a social technology developed to cooperatively deal with physical reality. Folk who think language is reality hav…
Critical theory may *say* that there is nothing outside language, that language creates reality, but it cannot *tell* us that, because it is not true. Even on the basis that the purpose of language was to persuade, it remains a social technology developed to cooperatively deal with physical reality. Folk who think language is reality have never tried to build something with another person (or have never thought about it). Engineers in particular generally have very little patience for this nonsense. But neither do martial artists (something, to varying levels, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Helen Dale and I all have in common).
Noam Chomsky has been a long term critique of this nonsense, back to his debates with Foucault, because he is a Darwinian, his theory of linguistic is firmly based in biological evolution. We can only “do” language because of our evolved capacities.
True. This is the limitation of Critical Theory. It is one intellectual approach which is useful in the social sciences, literary studies and the like, but has limited application elsewhere. Your term "social technology" is useful because it points to this limitation in Critical Theory. People who don't or won't understand this then use it as having explanatory force in places where it doesn't. Like using a sports car to pull a plough.
Critical theory may *say* that there is nothing outside language, that language creates reality, but it cannot *tell* us that, because it is not true. Even on the basis that the purpose of language was to persuade, it remains a social technology developed to cooperatively deal with physical reality. Folk who think language is reality have never tried to build something with another person (or have never thought about it). Engineers in particular generally have very little patience for this nonsense. But neither do martial artists (something, to varying levels, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Helen Dale and I all have in common).
Noam Chomsky has been a long term critique of this nonsense, back to his debates with Foucault, because he is a Darwinian, his theory of linguistic is firmly based in biological evolution. We can only “do” language because of our evolved capacities.
True. This is the limitation of Critical Theory. It is one intellectual approach which is useful in the social sciences, literary studies and the like, but has limited application elsewhere. Your term "social technology" is useful because it points to this limitation in Critical Theory. People who don't or won't understand this then use it as having explanatory force in places where it doesn't. Like using a sports car to pull a plough.