Philosophy 101 Unit 1

So I missed the Gehlen lecture(s). I have a ton of questions. Instead of meeting up with Daniel and talking to him individually, I figured I’d give y’all a chance to prove your stuff.

All of my questions will be directly from the text, as in I’ll be quoting each segment that confuses me (just a heads up). This is going to be rather nitpicky…but bear with me. I may bring up lines that don’t matter that much, but I just want to be sure.

Page 88

At the bottom of this page is a little portion to explain further the notion of us being “constitutionally embryonic through and through” based on a previous work by Gehlen. In the blurb at the bottom it states, “on evidence from comparative embryology…the human gestation period is too short (by several months) to bring the human fetus to the same level of maturity at birth as for the fetus of closely related species.” What is he trying to say here? Is this arguing that in order to correct our frailness/vulnerability upon birth, a few more months in the womb would be a solution? What other species is he talking about? This is the first time I’ve really noticed or translated what a philosopher said as suggesting that we are inferior to other animals from a biological perspective. It’s possible that he’s not even referring to our vulnerability though he does say we are “Poorly equipped as he is with sensory apparatus, naturally defenseless, naked….possessing only inadequate instincts, man is a being whose existence necessarily depends upon action.” I’m not really sure how these two concepts are connected (at least in how I’m translating the text).

Page 89

“It {I believe this pronoun refers to technique} truly mirrors man–like man himself it is clever, it represents something intrinsically improbable, it bears a complex, twisted relationship to nature.” I don’t really understand what is meant by a twisted relationship to nature. Is this what Dan kept talking about in terms of the mirror concept?

Page 91

“The tendency, which characterizes the progress of technique…is ultimately rooted in a mysterious law pertaining to the realm of the mind….Nonorganic nature is more knowable than organic nature.” Why is this? Is this because we “created” or rather “manipulated the creation of” inorganic substances? We still don’t know the consequences of the inorganic, and I thought that was one thing Gehlen was harping at earlier in the article.

Page 92

I don’t get the quote by Bergson. I understand the first part, but not the actual quoted material. As in I get this segment: “intellect can only be judged in relation to action, and its primary aim is the production of artifacts”

This is what I don’t get: “‘Therefore…we may expect to find that whatever is fluid in the real will escape (the intellect) in part. Our intelligence, as it leaves the hands of nature, has for its chief object the unorganized solid.’”

Page 94

What is meant by saying that “the natural sciences attained the modern configuration, that is, they become analytical-experimental” ? I think I’m missing this point because my knowledge of history is somewhat lacking. Is it just that now beliefs were open to be tested in scientific manners and questioned in the same sense rather than relying on religion, or rather, Gehlen’s notion of magic, to explain everything?

At the bottom, there is mention of the third factor that allowed for astonishing accomplishments of the modern era. What were the first two? I seem to have missed them in my hyper attention to the article. (I guess you could call that inattention) :OP

Page 95

Can someone elaborate on this point and explain how/what is meant by it?

“The notion that technique constitutes ‘applied science’ is obsolete and old-fashioned: today the three establishments–industry, technique, and natural science–presuppose one another.” How do they presuppose one another? Is this just a quick way to say that they completely overlap and rely on another?

Page 96

What is meant by “the capitalist mode of production” ? Is this suggesting that progress only occurs when it is financed? Is this a criticism?

Just two lines down, Gehlen makes a claim that seems very blanketed statement. I’m not sure where the foundation for this claim is, though I might just be missing the point entirely or doubting what I think it means.

“One cannot expect such historically unique and radical processes to remain without influence upon the consciousness of the men involved in them.”

Is this in relation to the claims made by either Clark or Dreyfus about the replacement that occurs because of technology with human relations to one another? As in, the whole notion that your in multiple places at once because of technology?

Page 97

What is meant by “technique proper” in this section?

“It is easy to see that this definition {an attempt to bring about changes to the advantage of men, by diverting things from their own path and toward our own service} can encompass both magic and technique proper, thus both supernatural and natural magic.”

Page 98

“This primary human interest in the regularity of the processes of nature deserves emphasis: It betrays a semi-instinctual need for stability in the environment” I feel like the word “betrays” is the opposite from what is meant in this article. If anything, what we are missing is that the only stability we can count on in life but especially in nature is instability.

As you all know, I get rather annoyed when philosophers speak of G-d or some type of G-d like figure. I feel that is the impact of their society (or their time) affecting their brilliant work. I may be mistaken about this next portion, but it seems like he’s referring to G-d getting involved or that humans have G-dlike abilities. If it is the latter, then he’s betraying his argument about magic unless I’m completely misunderstanding his point.

“Also, the magical forces with which the world is filled are neither arbitrary nor spontaneous;one can set them into motion by means of the appropriate, precisely repeated formulas, after which they operate under their own impulse, necessarily and automatically.”

Isn’t this what people believed once upon a time, or I guess you can argue that religious fanatics still believe in this? Hence the rain dances and other acts? Who is this one he speaks of? Anyone? That defies his argument per my understanding.

Page 99

What is meant by this phrase?

“The fascination with automatisms is a prerational, transpractical impulse, which previously, for millennia, found expression in magic..” Is this suggesting that before we were able to rationally explain certain things, we found answers in magic?

Can someone explain the “dumb process of nature?”

I’ll stop there, perhaps some answers to these questions will help me understand the rest that I’m questioning

Thanks All!

In honor that people will be going to the polls in close to 8 hours, I thought I would write a lovely little post that ties in voter fraud to our discussions on Tech.

According to Gehlen, he believes that technology is in and of itself neutral. I would normally disagree with that statement. Afterall, I always argue that yes, the gun may not kill people, but it makes killing people much easier, and hence can make murders out of those who wouldn’t normally be. However, on this occasion I shall take a different approach.

We are all firmilliar with voting machines, either from the media or by actually using one. When one stops to think about, such machines were really designed to simplify the voting process. The ballots would no longer need to be hand counted, delaying election results. All one would need to do is talley up the ballots from each canidate. I worked as a judge of election during the primaries in Chicago. Their were two types of ballots, the electronic machine which would print out a copy of the ballot for you to check to make sure everything was ok, and a paper ballot which you would connect a line with a special pen. While the electronic machines is obviously…electric, the paper ballot would be run through a machine, which kept tabs on the votes and the number of ballots. At the end all the scores would be tabulated. The point I am really getting at is, this process in theory, makes things extremely simple.

But of course, even if the technology is indead neutral, people seem to like to like to fuck the system. Companies it would seem, have a vested interest in who wins. So then, is the technology neutral? In this case, I would say probably so. People have been trying to steal elections for years. Hell I should know, I’m from Chicago, the city where the dead vote! Voter fraud has been going on for generations. It is all about paying the right people. It just happens to have gotten much easier. All one needs to do is make sure that there is no paper trail, and that the machines are programmed correctly so that say a canidate doesn’t start out with 0 votes, but negative votes. But I digress.

Essentially I can this being interpreted either way. Yes, electronic voting had obviously been designed to easy the stress that comes along with counting ballots. They were invented with the idea of simplifying peoples lives. Unfortunately, greedy and corrupt people seem to not think that was good enough. So is this technology neutral or not? Have elections been getting stolen for years and this is just the new generation of it, or has this made it so much easier that it cannot be thought up as neutral? As much as I hate ending posts with questions, I feel it will at least generate discussion.

So today in class, when Daniel asked us where we all stand on the views of Gehlen and Heidegger, no one really responded.  When the difference between their opinions was made more clear, more people answered, but obviously not with a lot of conviction.  I’m writing this blog to discuss about this issue on technology so as to maybe end up at some solid opinion by the end of it.  And if I’m really lucky, it’ll help you guys as well.  Then our debate will be just as violent as the previous ones.

So let’s talk about Heidegger first.  He says that technology changes perspective.  I can’t deny that.  If I never had a jacket before and I just happened to get one this year for my birthday, I would see the outside world in a new light.  I wouldn’t be as adverse to going out, because now I have something that keeps me warm.  So that’s true.  So now let’s say I get a gun.  I’ve never had one of those either (for real this time), so it’s a bit of a change for me to have something that has the capability to kill.  Still, I don’t think people are just going to start looking like targets to me.  I’m not going to go around shooting anything that dissatisfies me.  In fact, I won’t be shooting anything probably.  Having that gun might change my perspective, I might think to myself “I could kill someone right now if I wanted to.”  But as it is now, I’m not so into the idea, and no presence of a gun is going to change that.  When it comes down to it, technology might have some sway over my opinions, but it couldn’t change my values so easily, if at all.

But since it’s safe to say that technology does indeed effect perspective, even if it does not effect values quite the same way, can it be said that technology is entirely neutral?  Probably not.  The capabilities of a certain item are changing certain things about the way I think and see things.  If there is any change, it can’t be neutral, right?  I would say so.  I still don’t agree with the example of “having a hammer makes everyone looks like nails.” Technology can certainly change perspective, but not to such a great extent, not to the point where my very values are changing as quickly as it takes for me to pick up a gun.

Overall then, I guess I would fall on Heidegger’s side, though I wouldn’t want to assosciate myself entirely with it.  I’m not sure I agree with some of the other things he’s said, but in terms of technology’s “charge,” I don’t see how it could be entirely neutral.

Post by Tuesday?

• Is technology a “dumb process of nature”?
• Does technology serve the same psychological functions as magic?
• Is man himself automatism?
• How does technology mirror man?
• How does technology bear a “twisted relationship to nature”?
• Is technology part of our essence?