For the debate, I was on Dreyfus’ side. Before the debate, I initially thought I was going to be on Dreyfus’ side, but after looking through my notes, I decided Clark’s arguments made more sense for the most part. What I did not agree with, however, was his view of telepresence, and when I had to choose a side I felt compelled to agree with Dreyfus. I believe that there is no possible way that interactions through technology will ever replace the need for human contact. When I’m not feeling well, I can call my mom and complain, but all I really want is a hug and technology can’t do that for me. I also disagree with the idea that this sort of technology should be viewed as shoes instead of crutches. I feel that this is a very weak argument on Clark’s part. Using technological mediators such as the internet does not enhance interactions and relationships. They are a crutch because people should only use them when they need them, for instance if a close friend moves far away or if you want to keep in touch with friends at other schools. If using technology truly enhances relationships, then why don’t I talk to my roommate through IM? It just wouldn’t make sense if someone is within reasonable physical distance because we prefer person-to-person interactions, not person-to-technology-to-person interactions.
On the other hand, I completely disagree with Dreyfus’ idea of nihilism and the public sphere. Perhaps it’s the journalist in me, but I see nothing wrong with informing people on what is going on in the world around them. Dreyfus sites Kierkegaard as saying
Jeremy Mcguire | 19-Apr-07 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
The problem I have with Dreyfus and Clark is that they are both at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Dreyfus thinks the internet will lead to chaos and nihilism and Clark believes that the internet and other technologies will soon mediate our lives. Both of them can’t find that middle ground and see that these technologies do not have to take over our lives because we have choice, well at right now. So I to had problem choosing sides because they both have arguments that I disagree with.
Brandon Wilkins | 22-Apr-07 at 4:57 pm | Permalink
I agree with Jeremy, Clark and Dreyfus seem to argue extreme points, and while that may seem more entertaining from a philosophical point of view, will it really happen? I think the answer to this is no. When I think about this concept I recall the movie IRobot, and how technology takes over. I would like to believe that our society would not let technology govern our lives in such a way that we become disconnected from our families and true relationships. I think technology, and the internet, should be used to enhance our experiences, make information more accessible, and long distance chats easier to obtain (lets say through AIM); and that it wont be used to replace these relationships and experiences.
Danielle Foster | 26-Apr-07 at 10:58 am | Permalink
I agree with Jeremy about them both being at the extreme ends. I feel like there should be some sort of middle ground. I agree with Erica about technology being used as a crutch. People in our society are so more interested in getting things done quickly and easily. It is so much easier to call your friend that lives 3 floors down than to actually walk down there and ask her in person. It is easier to post all your pictures online for people to see them than to take your camera to Walgreens, get prints, and make a nice photo album. Everything in our society is based on efficiency and technology helps us accomplish that efficiency.
Kerry Phelan | 26-Apr-07 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
Danielle really summed up my thoughts about technology. Now a days we will do anything to speed up the process, anything that will make our lives a little easier. Why walk down three flights of stairs when I can just call my friend to see what she is wearing tonight? It’s so much easier and much more convenient for us to use the technology we have been given than to do these tasks ourselves.
Jaren Gaddi | 26-Apr-07 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
We are social beings - we have a need for interaction with others. While the internet may cause disembodiment and allow people to detach themselves from their opinion and their actions, there still is the need to communicate. Could it be that the random obscene commenter on a public blog is just screaming for attention and someone to interact with? I don’t think that the internet will lead to a chaos of social inaction. But I do feel that if you let yourself get carried away, you may end up isolating yourself from the real world.
That being said, technology and the internet still is a great tool for communication. As Brandon said, long distance communication is faster than ever. We can get tasks done faster in order to give ourselves more free time. We just need to find a balance so that technology helps to better ourselves and the world, not to hinder them.