Philosophy 101 Unit 1

            Distance learning.  It feels more and more like a philosophy class when one must clarify the terminology involved in any question.  What is learning?  If we’re going to deconstruct what we know to be “education,” into a distant, media-based forum, then the definition and purpose of learning must be observed.

Online or correspondence courses sound great if their purpose is to learn a skill or specific, factually-based information. Learning something practical to put to use in the “real world” is a possibility with distance learning.  To a lesser extent, one could achieve the same goal by reading a book.  Maybe it’s easier to learn a skill (typing, gardening, simple algebra, locksmithing, etc.) with a teacher to help, but it’s not impossible to do it on one’s own.  Even learning the principles and details of certain subjects (history, grammar, languages) is possible without the traditional classroom atmosphere.  But can analysis happen?  Can one synthesize information in a vacuum, even if that vacuum contains all the world’s knowledge at one’s fingertips?  If education were all about vocation, then we wouldn’t bother with classes grounded in the liberal arts.  Distance learning can only accomplish specifics, it has no precedence over the realm of holistics.  It cannot make well-rounded students, much less well-rounded human beings.

It makes sense to have some sort of hybrid blend in teaching styles.  Just because we have the technology doesn’t mean it’s the best option in every situation.  But there’s also no reason for us to go Luddite and return to one-room schoolhouses and individual chalk boards.  Obviously what we talk about in class is all theory, but to talk about the internet like it’s the be-all and end-all of our lives is absurd.  We should work to separate ourselves from its all-encompassing nature.  Just because it’s big and just because it’s there (everywhere, that is) doesn’t mean it should dictate our lives.

I realize the argument goes down a slippery slope, but if being with other people doesn’t matter in the context of school and learning, then where does it matter?  Friendships can occur over the internet, dating as well.  What about family? Long distance family?  We don’t technically need companionship to ensure human survival, since we have sperm banks, right?  And if people are already looking into simulating sex, then we don’t need to be with others for pleasure, either.  But all these possibilities for us, as “cyborgs,” don’t take into account all the psychological studies about companionship.  Babies who aren’t touched don’t develop as fast or as wholly as babies who are touched.  What about the monkey who chose the surrogate mother made of cloth instead of the surrogate mother made of wire, even though the latter was dispensing milk?  While Dreyfus may make some claims that can’t be verified, Clark seems to ignore a lot of the facts that make us human.  He sees only the parts of humanity that can prove his theory.  The fact of the matter is that humans do need companionship, and no matter how much we utilize outside tools, no matter how much everything can be considered a tool, no one can survive without other people. 

• Are we natural born cyborgs? Is the mind extended? Are our technological devices part of our (soft) selves?
• Does Clark’s revision of the old mind-body problem solve any of the Cartesian worries we encountered at the beginning of the semester? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
• Which examples in the text did you find especially convincing? Which ones were unconvincing? How does this hurt Clark’s argument?
• What similarities do you see between Clark and Gehlen? What are the differences between these two views?
• Clark boils down our interactions with technology to two fundamental dimensions: the transparency of the interface and the resulting expansion of our capacities. Are there any other ways in which technology might affect our cognitive abilities?
• Clark says the human brain is unique in its plasticity and opportunism. Is he right, or is there some other source of uniqueness? If so, does this fall into the Cartesian problem of dualism?
• Clark downplays the importance of the barrier between biology and technology. Is this barrier important? Why or why not?
• Clark says that language itself is an example of an external prop that not only extends our cognitive capacities but restructures the way we think about the world. Is language an example of an external tool?