I

Terry Lasut

Intro to Philosophy SPL 100 01

Dr. Daniel Martino

6 November 2018

The Philosophy of Technology

echnology as it is in today’s age definitely has the potential to be very beneficial.

T Personally, I find that technology causes more problems in life than resolving

them. For example, I’m willing to bet that everyone with a cell phone has some form of social

media. There are hours upon hours spent scrolling through Facebook or answering Snap Chats

from your friends. I simply do not understand the high want for social media. Every time I walk

into a public place, I always take notice to how many people are sitting at a table eating with

family for example, how many of those people are on their phones scrolling through social media

and sending selfies to their friends. It really is unfortunate how we prioritize things in our lives.

So many times, people will put technology at the top of their list instead of spending time with

family or being productive with their time.

I am not saying that all technology is bad. Technology put man on the moon and helps

save lives every single day. It is the way that we, as humans, abuse technology that is

detrimental. The way that humans mistreat technology can ruin relationships, ruin lives, and

destroy the world where we live. Technology can do some serious damage on relationships,

mainly when we choose to supplement relations with our partner with other means of pleasure.

The internet was not meant to be used for viewing inappropriate content, its purpose is to have

access to a vast amount of information at our will.

 II

Technology has a huge influence on the way we act. In today’s day and age every day we

hear about shootings and so many other acts of violence. Weapons are just another way that we

misuse advances in technology. The man credited for inventing the American M16 intended for

it to be used as a war time weapon not for the murder of so many innocent people. So, you see,

technology can be such a valuable resource, but it all depends on the hands that it is in.

Heidegger explains that technology creates an illusion to the world that we live in and

makes us become farther detached from everyday life (Heidegger, p.48). He is saying how we

have such an abundance of technology at our disposal, and how easy it is to get caught up in it all

and lose sight of the world around us. He goes on to talk about how in the future of technology,

will man let the technology he creates have full control of his life? (Heidegger, p.49) Will man

become more of a calculative thinker than a meditative thinker? When we rely so much on

technology and become calculative thinkers, we will inevitably be more concerned with the

actions we are taking, instead of the consequences of those actions. As a meditative thinker, we

think on a deeper level. We would think of the question “Why?”. Why do we do what we do? Is

there some kind of deeper seated meaning to the actions we take?

After seeing what Heidegger suggests about technology and its philosophical effect on

the human mind, it definitely supports my own thoughts and ideas on technology. Call me old

fashioned, but I limit the use of technology in my daily life. I do not like having to depend on

technology for a lot of things. There are a lot of skills that we can learn and adapt to our

everyday life that technology simply takes away. For example, I am willing to bet that there are

people in this room that have no idea how to look something up in a multiple volume

encyclopedia, or read a map. My thinking is, is that technology really does just get in the way

and can cause more problems than fix them. I would much rather look something up in a book
 III

than online. When finding information on the internet, we take the risk of that source not being

credible and we do not have to worry about a book crashing or losing its charge because we did

not have it plugged in. It is almost like technology frees us from having to think for ourselves

and that we develop this certain level of thoughtlessness to ourselves. Are we more connected to

the virtual world, or are we fully present and mentally coherent in the present world around us?

Which one is better?

Maurice Merleau-Ponty explains that we get our sense of the world from our perceptions.

He says that there is a need that will never cease in us as humans. It is the need to get an optimal

grip on the world. As humans, we often find the best point of view for taking in something as a

whole and as different parts. Merleau-Ponty said that like pictures in an art gallery, there is an

optimum distance from which it needs to be seen. Our vision can be clouded as a result of too

much distance, or lack thereof. We seek for maximum visibility and focus (Dreyfus p.54-55).

Descartes argues that our view on the world is indirect, meaning that things are never

directly present to us. He talks about the process of information getting to the brain makes us

unaware to what is really going on around us and that we are not really here. He uses the

example of how the eye responds to light and then passes that information on to the brain by way

of “the small fibres of the optic of the optic nerve” (Dreyfus p. 52). Just like light to the eye,

Descartes understood that different nerves brought other information to the brain, then to the

mind, making things never directly present.

When you apply Descartes ideas to a learning/teaching environment, it is as physically

being in class would be a form of direct, or face-to-face, learning and learning through the eyes

of a camera would be indirect. I can say for sure, that from my own experiences, I much prefer

learning in a more direct way. As David Blair explains that as a teacher, when he is directly
 IV

involved with his students, he can better understand them and how to more effectively teach the

class. He can see and read their body language and react to it as necessary. Blair says that, like

Merlear-Ponty’s idea of ‘maximum grip”, he is able to change his perspective on the students.

There is a certain way of enhanced communication when we are directly present. On the other

hand, Blair goes on to say that to look into a person’s eyes through a camera, you would have to

look at straight into the camera, but then you cannot see the eyes of the other person because you

would have to turn away from the camera. You can either look into the camera or look at the

screen, but you cannot do both (Dreyfus p. 59).

Barry Lamb goes along with the same kind of idea, that being physically present gives

you a whole new perspective on things, and I agree with that. We can have the aid of technology

to talk to people or watch videos and lessons to help us learn, but we will not get the same

benefits as physically being present in the situation. As stated by both David Blair and Barry

Lamb, the spectator can only see what the camera sees and that is it. It is almost like going to an

art exhibit and the paintings and sculptures not being finished, or only listening to half of a song,

you will never get the full story.

In a way, Heidegger Dreyfus’s ideas are very similar and have this sort of connectivity.

When Heidegger talks about technology creating an illusion to the world around us, that goes

along with Dreyfus’s idea that we strive for maximum visibility. An illusion is defined as

something that is likely to be misinterpreted or wrongly perceived by the senses. When we see a

magician do a magic trick, we are always watching from different angles trying to find that sweet

spot so we can see how they are fooling us. Technology is no different, it creates that same kind

of illusion. We never get the full picture when we have a computer screen between us and what it

is we are looking at. Overall, technology can be a very useful tool when it is used the right way.
 V

We should strive to limit our use of technology so that we do not become too dependent on it.

When we surround ourselves with technology, we get lost in a digital world and lose sight of

what is going on around us in the real world, almost as if our perception and view are impeded

by that wall of digital gadgetry. Technology is meant to be used as an aid, not a supplement for

being physically present at a lecture or whatever the case may be. There is so much that is

blocked by technology and we should not let that hinder our full capabilities as human beings.