Telepresence
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