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. 

Post in this thread by Tuesday for participation credit for this week.

Post 3 is due Monday by midnight. 

Read Natural Born Cyborg: The Introduction, and Chapter 1 and 3 for Tuesday. Read the rest of the book (especially chapters 4 and 5) for Thursday. 

• Why does Heidgger spend so much time talking about causality?
• Give some examples of a poetic perspective. 
• Is science dangerous? Is technology dangerous? Is Gehlen correct to describe science/technology as a way to “force nature open”? How does this relate to Heidegger’s discussion of ‘neutrality’?
• Does Heidegger do a good job of describing the instrumental relationship?
• Give some examples of the dangers Heidegger describes. 
• Heidegger says one danger is that “man always and everywhere sees only himself,” and that this is ultimately a human delusion. Can this delusion butress a critique of the design objection to artificial intelligence?
• Does our technology replace God? Can we build a room of requirement?

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.

Forgot to mention: Screening this Thursday at 9pm. We will be watching “Helvetica”.

Also, be sure to check out the Question Concerning Technology website, and prepare to hold a debate between Heidegger and Gehlen on Thursday. 

Update: I have caught up on grading up through comment # 522, in other words right before R&L thread 6. You should have received an email from me by now detailing your grade. If you want a more concise version, just ask and I’ll give you some more specific numbers. 

Hopefully I will have the midterms graded by next week. Remember post 3 is due this Thursday at Midnight.