Reviewing for the final reminded me of a counterargument I had to both Dreyfus on the internet and Plato on the written word, because they both used the same argument against the two. They said that this internet/written word hurts our ability to relate to other people. I would have to disagree with this statement. We are still able to relate to others, because as Clark said, the internet is technology that allows us to extend our capacities not replace them. We are not just going to sever all contact with the outside world just because we have the internet, just as we didn’t when we gained the ability to write things down. Dreyfus should look at history and see that his argument has already been found flawed.
Plato also said that the written word will cause us to “loose the ability to remember important events.” I would agree with this to an extent, but even before the written word I’m sure that people didn’t remember everything that happened second by second. When you write things down it enables you to go back and recall those things you forgot. I you will still remember the same over time as you would had you not written it down. I forget things I don’t write down, and I get mad at myself for not being able to remember, so when I do write it down I am extending my ability to do just that.
My last point I would like to make is that when Dreyfus said things like the TV phone didn’t catch on because people found it unfullfilling proves he is right in his argument, he is basically contradicting himself. If the internet is as unfullfilling as he says, then why is it catching on so quickly?
Daniel Fahey | 29-Nov-06 at 3:58 pm | Permalink
Now writing things down certainly has its benefits. The primary one, I believe, is that what gets written down won’t be altered much in the future. Granted, the things that get written down could be false to begin with, but at least the story won’t continually change over time. If we had stuck to the oral tradition then it would just have been about a 5,000 year long game of telephone and most of the time if you play that game with 10 people the message gets distorted.
But I do think that the internet has the negative effect of making things very impersonal. The internet made a lot of things easier for everyone, but I can’t help but feel it also makes us miss out on a lot of things. I know this is beating a dead horse, but when you were a kid and you’d meet up with all your friends and sit around and talk, now you can just all sit at your computers.
stephanie hernandez | 29-Nov-06 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
I diasgree with you to a certain extent, it is tue that Clark said that technology such as the internet does not replace but instead extends our capacity, but the aruguments made by Dreyfus are also very credible. It is true that advancements in technology such as the internte have allowed us to reach things we had never imagined, and that like you said, has caused everyone to become so attached to it. I mean, look at us now, we are having a virtual discussion through this website. I do not argue that, I believe that like Dreyfus said, it is impossible to ever have the real life experience through the internet, no matter how real it may seem with webcam and stuff like that, it is just not the same.
Jessica Podeschi | 29-Nov-06 at 9:03 pm | Permalink
In response to Stephanie, I just wanted to clarify the point I am arguing. I realize there are things that the internet doesn’t provide that we need. I was trying to say that that is the exact reason why society won’t allow the internet to hurt our ability to interact that way, because we will still crave it and communicate in person, just like we did after the written word was established.