Dreyfus believes that the public will acquire knowledge, but will never act on it because they just keep acquiring more and more information and keep changing their opinion. This information over load makes Dreyfus disapprove of the public sphere because if everyone’s opinions are heard, then no one’s opinions really matter. I disagree with this because the idea of the public sphere that Habermas intended was formed when one is interacting with others and with society at large. It is a network for communicating information and point of view. The public sphere has of course widened and changed over the years to now include the internet. I do agree with Dreyfus that there is a huge difference in what we do online and what we do in real life and there is a disinhibition effect. Take this website for instance. A lot of people write things on here that they probably would not say in class, but I would not say that this is because this website takes away that shared ‘risk’. People can still disagree with you and leave comments and you can still be wrong. So even though we are separated from our bodies while on the internet, what we say and do is still directly related back to our bodies. What you write are still your words and thoughts. That can never be separated from you.
As for Dreyfus’s disapproval of Wikipedia, I agree that quality is better that quantity because if you have a whole lot of something bad, it is not going to do you any good. As far as Wikipedia goes though, the quality is practically just as good as other sources according to that study so really it is bringing us quality and quantity. No wonder Dreyfus does not like the idea behind Wikipedia considering that it is bringing the public sphere even more to the forefront because society is able to communicate information in new ways.
Jeremy Mcguire | 17-Apr-07 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
I do agree that the public sphere has gotten so large that any body can contribute to our news through various forms of media and not be held responsible for it. This bothers Dreyfus because people are not acting upon there words. But I think that however corrupt or wrong our information can be it is still a tool to allow us to be a tuned to the comings and goings of the world even if its not in our proximity. I would rather be bombarded with tons of info and decipher what is important to me than be left in the dark.
Sam Mowry | 18-Apr-07 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
I agree with you against dreyfus, that the public sphere isn’t going to lead to nihilism just because people can say whatever they want online. If anything, I think the internet makes it easier to become MORE active because you can join a facebook group or sign up for a campaign while randomly browsing online that you wouldn’t necessarily seek out in person. Then by making that small first step, you might even be more likely to do something more bold now, rather than having to jump in all at once before.
Jaren Gaddi | 26-Apr-07 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
I do agree with Dreyfus on some issues such as distance learning and disembodiment, but I do have a hard time believing that the internet’s information overload will cause public inaction. I do agree that the internet does cause some people to be detached from the things they say and do - but not everyone is like that. The internet allows us to get the information we need in order to act. There are people out there who will voice their opinions and are willing to act on them as well. Given the right conditions, I agree that the internet may lead to action rather than cause inaction.