When I first read this chapter, I had a hard time trying to understand what was being said. I went over it a second time because I thought I was finally getting it, but became even more confused. On the third attempt, I tried to isolate some key points that I could understand. In the first paragraph, Ihde talks about how we have to analyze "...the difference between technological and nontechnological worlds must begin in such a way that technologies must take their proper place in such a world." (31) Ihde goes on to say that we have to be careful to be non prejudiced in either direction. This beginning has me concerned because I wonder if we can ever really make some kind of comparison between a technological and nontechnological world. Has a nontechnological world ever existed? If Adam and Eve were reaching for the apple and it was too far for them, they got a rock to stand on right? Or maybe when they were sitting down to eat in the garden, they sat on a rock instead of on the ground. Did they even ever live in a nontechnological world? They certainly did not when they used a fig leaf to cover themselves. They had just designs the first clothes that man would ever wear. That's my first clear view that I had here.
Next I started concentrating on Heidegger's Hammer. At first, I feel like I can really get into this guy because he's talking common sense about whether a hammer is used in a normal sense to drive nails versus an abnormal sense if it's broken. Then Ihde starts telling us how Heidegger says the hammer must withdraw and later talks about an "experienced tool." I think either Ihde or Heidegger is leading us off the path of common sense and placing actual life existence on the hammer instead of it being just an object that is a tool to be used by the carpenter. Next I thought I would delve into what Ihde says about Husserl's Galilieo. As I was reading a paragraph of how "Galileo must find a means to translate plenary phenomena into spatial ones in order for them to become available for geometrical analysis", it hit me that I might not have been the target audience for this book.
I do like reading about Merleau-Ponty's view that perception and how it can be extended through the body of some object. In this area, I think everyone has been reached because we can all related to the fact that we can walk through a doorway without checking it's measurements as well as our own to make sure we can fit. I also think we can all identify with the blind man's cane and how these objects become an extension of ourselves. This common sense approach to understanding the use of technology will have a much longer impact on me and my understanding of how technology has affected all of us and the world we live in.
I think that we have to realize that every object in this world that is man or God made has technology inherently built into it. We just have to see whether it enhances our life as a human or begins to separate us from each other. The blind man's cane helps him connect with society. Does your cell phone truly do the same thing for you or does it allow you to distance yourself from society? This is the main idea we have to draw about each piece of technology and whether it is helping us or hurting us?
No comments:
Post a Comment