Scott Alexander[ recently wrote a piece on the social model of disability. The social model is, in sum, a theory of disability that argues that disability arises from society’s inability or unwillingness to accommodate disabled people and that disability can be best resolved by changes to society. Scott argues that the social model, as taken literally is false, and favors the interactive model, a balanced theory that suggests disability can be best resolved by a combination of medical and social interventions.Scott Alexander[ recently wrote a piece on the social model of disability. The social model is, in sum, a theory of disability that argues that disability arises from society’s inability or unwillingness to accommodate disabled people and that disability can be best resolved by changes to society. Scott argues that the social model, as taken literally is false, and favors the interactive model, a balanced theory that suggests disability can be best resolved by a combination of medical and social interventions.
Your distinction between different types of truth reminded me of a piece by Costanzo Preve, an Armenian-Italian Marxist philosopher. Here it is: http://blog.petiteplaisance.it/costanzo-preve-1943-2013-su-laicismo-verita-relativismo-e-nichilismo Unfortunately I doubt it has ever been translated (though deepl may be helpful in this case); still the gist of it is that he distinguishes between truth (verità) and other concepts (certainty/exactitude). The former has a social component that stems from the union of fact (fatto) and value (valore); the latter have to do with mere factual accuracy. He questions the idea that factual statements and value judgments should be separated, deconstructing it by tracing its historical genesis. Indeed religious truths were socially sanctioned constructs that spanned both dimensions. Think of a religiously true statement such as ‘God is love’. I am not sure I buy his argument in full, but it’s an interesting perspective and almost the polar opposite of that of the ‘rationalist’ community.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, sounds similar to what I'm articulating here, and Tim O'Brien was the one who came to mind as someone who feels that truth is actually often more truthful when not literally true, at least in specific, difficult-to-articulate, situations.
I think the issue here is that, of course, thoughtful and clear discourse is always best, but in many situations it is functionally impossible to achieve. Sometimes we choose to express something that is a step, or even quite a few steps, away from a larger but very complex truth.
I think it's fair for Scott to be suspicious of this, but he actually often looks at things with great complexity and expresses them well. In this case, I do think he fell down a little, and maybe didn't use his full capabilities.
Thanks for droppying by, it's encouraging to get a few comments on a first post!
Do people regard the Paralympics as a joke? Probably depends on the social circle you're in but most people I know take it seriously. Not sure they watch it but then I don't think they watch the Olympics either...
I'm involved with adaptive sports, and, unfortunately, yes, it's a common target for jokes. Perhaps more so in the 2000s than now. I still get a lot of skeptical, dismissive, or disparaging reactions, but also encounter many who are supportive.
Your distinction between different types of truth reminded me of a piece by Costanzo Preve, an Armenian-Italian Marxist philosopher. Here it is: http://blog.petiteplaisance.it/costanzo-preve-1943-2013-su-laicismo-verita-relativismo-e-nichilismo Unfortunately I doubt it has ever been translated (though deepl may be helpful in this case); still the gist of it is that he distinguishes between truth (verità) and other concepts (certainty/exactitude). The former has a social component that stems from the union of fact (fatto) and value (valore); the latter have to do with mere factual accuracy. He questions the idea that factual statements and value judgments should be separated, deconstructing it by tracing its historical genesis. Indeed religious truths were socially sanctioned constructs that spanned both dimensions. Think of a religiously true statement such as ‘God is love’. I am not sure I buy his argument in full, but it’s an interesting perspective and almost the polar opposite of that of the ‘rationalist’ community.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, sounds similar to what I'm articulating here, and Tim O'Brien was the one who came to mind as someone who feels that truth is actually often more truthful when not literally true, at least in specific, difficult-to-articulate, situations.
I think the issue here is that, of course, thoughtful and clear discourse is always best, but in many situations it is functionally impossible to achieve. Sometimes we choose to express something that is a step, or even quite a few steps, away from a larger but very complex truth.
I think it's fair for Scott to be suspicious of this, but he actually often looks at things with great complexity and expresses them well. In this case, I do think he fell down a little, and maybe didn't use his full capabilities.
Thanks for droppying by, it's encouraging to get a few comments on a first post!
Do people regard the Paralympics as a joke? Probably depends on the social circle you're in but most people I know take it seriously. Not sure they watch it but then I don't think they watch the Olympics either...
I'm involved with adaptive sports, and, unfortunately, yes, it's a common target for jokes. Perhaps more so in the 2000s than now. I still get a lot of skeptical, dismissive, or disparaging reactions, but also encounter many who are supportive.