The Problem If 2 Plus 2 Does Not Equal 4
What if 2+2=4 is racism? What if 2+2 for the same matter could be 3, or 5? What is the origin of this idea, and what are the implications of this line of thinking?
The idea that 2+2 does not necessarily have to be 4 is coherent with the theory of social constructivism, truth is constructed by social processes and is historically and culturally specific, all of our knowledge is `constructed,´ it does not reflect any external realities. Constructivists believe that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender, are socially constructed. Hegel and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that the truth is, or can be, socially constructed.
In Spiral Dynamics, this corresponds with the Green level. The Green level is sensitive to people´s feelings of thinking and seeks equality and fairness. If we push this too far, we focus too much on how we feel and avoid rationality.
Subjectivism is the doctrine that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience, instead of shared or communal, and that there is no external or objective truth. In its extreme form, it is the theory that something is true simply because one believes it to be so. Kierkegaard makes a distinction between objective truths and subjective truths. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person’s being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person’s way of being. Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that objective truths do not shed any light on a person’s inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one’s actual experience of life. While objective truths are final and static, subjective truths are continuing and dynamic.
If we follow the ideas of social constructivism or subjectivism, then there are some problems. With normativity (it is generally good to believe what is true), there is the problem that there is no norm; it is constructed or subjective. What is considered good by one does not have to be considered good by another. The same for false beliefs, the notion that believing a statement does not necessarily make it true. An ethical subjectivist might propose that what it means for something to be morally right is just for it to be approved of. This idea can lead to the belief that different things are right according to each moral outlook. One implication of these beliefs is that the subjectivist thinks that ethical sentences, while subjective, are nonetheless the kind of thing that can be true or false depending on the situation.
Another problem is that it is impossible to make comparative judgments about statements made according to different worldviews. This is because the criteria of judgment have to be based on some worldview or other. If this is the case, it brings into question how communication between them about the truth or falsity of any given statement could be established. It makes it impossible to believe in error. If there is no truth beyond an individual’s belief that something is true, an individual cannot hold their own beliefs to be false or mistaken; it destroys the distinction between truth and belief.
There is a contradiction in constructivism; somehow, the supporter of constructivism is not under the influence of social processes. While other people are controlled by the dominant concepts of society, the supporter of constructivism can transcend these concepts and see through them.
Freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.
John Paul II
There is a difference between truth and facts. A logical truth is a statement that is true in all possible worlds or under all possible interpretations, as contrasted to a fact which is only true in this world as it has historically unfolded. A proposition such as `If p and q, then p´ is considered to be a logical truth because of the meaning of the symbols and words in it and not because of any fact of any particular world. They are such that they could not be untrue.
If we think about truth in a pragmatic way, we hold that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one’s concepts into practice. If we would investigate endlessly, we would bring about scientific belief. A negative pragmatist would never stop testing; an idea or theory could never be proven right because tomorrow’s experiment might succeed in proving wrong what he thought was right. We never are definitely right; we can only be sure we are wrong. This is different from social constructivism because, in negative pragmatism, we know 2+2=5 is wrong.
It does not show a lot of insight to choose math as a symbol for racism… The first use of math was probably by the Sumerians, not exactly the pinnacle of white supremacy. Math was further developed by Egyptians, Greek, Roman, Chines, Indian, Islamic Empire, Maya, and European. I would say an amazing multicultural achievement! And that is also why it is so powerful. We can use it throughout the world; it does not matter if you speak Chinese, English, or Spanish; math is the same language everywhere. Math does not differentiate between races and religions. The beauty of math is that it has no emotion. It creates order in chaos. It is rational. It does not pass judgment. And it shows the value of truth.
Interesting links:
The Problem Of Identity Politics
Fictional Alarmism, Time for Some Debunking. Part II: Social Issues
Transgenerational Guilt: A Road to Nowhere
Social Justice Warrior: The New Sorcerer’s Apprentice?
You think this is a worthy blog and you want to read more?