We are unknown to ourselves… and with good reason. We have never sought ourselves — how could it happen that we should ever find ourselves? … Whatever else there is in life, so-called ‘experiences’– which of us has sufficient earnestness for them? Or sufficient time? Present experience has, I am afraid, always found us ‘absent-minded’: we cannot give our hearts to it– not even our ears! rather, as one divinely preoccupied and immersed in himself into whose ear the bell has just boomed with all its strength the twelve beats of noon suddenly starts up and asks himself: ‘what really was that which just struck?’ so we sometimes rub our ears afterward and ask, utterly surprised and disconcerted, ‘what really was that which we have just experienced?’ and moreover: ‘who are we really?’
On the Genealogy of Morals, preface, Nietzsche
Notice the title of this post is in quotes. Remember what that means?
One of the most common criticisms on the evaluations was that the course title and description did not accurately reflect the course content. I admit that I was not as strong on the ‘human nature’ aspect as I was on the ‘technology’ side. But I think I can defend my approach.
Almost everyone we read agrees that a discussion of human nature cannot discount the effects of technology on our social and individual lives. I went into the course with the strong bias that the title of the course was entirely redundant- there is no discussion of human nature without discussing technology, and there is no discussion of technology without a treatment of human nature.
But as the Nietzsche quote above suggests, the two discussion are not just mutually reinforcing. Both bear a strong parallel, emphasized later by Heidegger and Jonas, not to mention Gibson: in neither case do we understand what is going on. We can’t explain our own selves any better than we can explain our technology. We lose ourselves, including our technology, in the process of living our lives. Not until later can we stop and ask the question “who are we?” and “what are these machines that are so important to our lives?”
Gehlen suggests that the inorganic is fundamentally more knowable than the organic. This may be questionable epistemology, but it implies that the technology that surrounds us is easier to discuss than our own nature. We saw during our own brainstorming session at the beginning of class that our opinions on technology were much less articulate than our understanding of human nature; and yet, our discussion of human nature was often confused, overly general, and served to simply reaffirm our received biases. By the end of the class, we were talking much more intelligently about technology, and everyone claimed to have a hightened sense of awareness of the affects of technology on their own lives.
I’d like to think that this process entailed not only a deeper understanding of technology, but also a deeper understanding of your nature as a human being. Since we never had the opportunity to close that chapter of the discussion, I’d like you guys to use this post to respond to the following question: How has your understanding of human nature changed since you’ve taken this class?
2 Comments »
