The Philosophy of Technology, Making Better Something We Haven't Yet Invented

Philosophy isn't always looking backwards. Sometimes it is arguing forward, and where better to argue than the subject of shoes; err, I mean, technology. My son just walked into my library took one look at these shoes (above) and said to me: "Men respond to cars the way women respond to shoes." 

And he's right. Well, mostly. But the one thing upon which both genders usually agree is the benefits of technology, or applied science. Technological advancement is what keeps contemporary society connected. Not only is technology a formidable economic force but it is a cultural and philosophical one, as well. 

Science is the concern of what is, whereas technology concerns itself with what is to be. Having worked with engineers for the last 20 years, I have heard it said this way: 

"Scientists want to figure out what's going on and how it works; engineers are busy figuring out how it ought to work, but better."

In other words, technology aims to change the world into what we most desire it to be. Theoretically, a future philosophy of technology will include questions about what drives the innovation process, the importance of brainstorming, the casual relationship between intuitive judgment and scientific methods on the basis of empirical evidence (or, that which is derived from data mining), and shoes, lots of shoes. 

Let us consider design; its process and the artefacts produced. If engineers are focused on problem solving, by design, then each new upgrade should theoretically address a specific problem encountered in daily life. This includes hunger and other aspects of inequality. Apps on how to grow your own food, DIY projects to improve your standard of living, and other life hacks would become piecemeal upgrades, a product of social engineering, as we think about how each component or feature will improve the lives of millions.  

Let us say for example that a team of experts figure out how to extend human life by two or three hundred years. Should they? Who decides? Who pays for the additional load on our planet's resources? A number of ethical themes arise before the design process. Do we design obsolescence into an object? If you own a GE appliance, you may already know the answer to this question. 

 

Responsibility has long since been a central theme in the ethics of technology. The traditional philosophy of ethics claims we are responsible for the technologies we develop. Is that not akin to saying that the engineer is guilty if his/her technology saves a person's life and that later that same person commits a crime? 

Philosophical questions lead to scientific theories and experiments, which then get developed into the technology upon which we rely. The philosophy of technology is essentially asking how to make better something we haven't yet invented. 

Less is More

Less is more advocates for a minimalist approach to an artistic or aesthetic expression. One might pinpoint the declining number of posts published herein as a minimalist approach to blogging ... 

A philosophy of minimalism is similar to the philosophy of listening in the sense that it is conceptually "empty" but simultaneously "filled in" with thoughts or attributes. 

Speaking (or writing) is only one half of language, in which the power of discourse is highlighted over its necessary compliment: listening or reading. 

In order for one to be 'heard'

another must be listening

Over time society has empowered expressive language with the entire domain of communicating, negating listening.

For some, listening requires a Herculean effort. Most "listen" with the intent of responding. This is based on the idea that one must always know what to say as an expression of self worth. This might be true in certain professional circumstances when one's opinion is being sought, but in interpersonal relationships what we're listening for is the other's intent. 

Individuals with auditory processing challenges do not easily process when someone has asked them a question and is waiting for a response, or when someone has finished speaking and is waiting for them to interject a relevant comment. Over time these individuals end up "second guessing" (because listening intently can be just as exhaustive as speaking non-stop) in order to ease communication. Frequently this can result in "interrupting" the speaker. When an individual is listening so intently that the listener prematurely jumps the gun to speak prior to waiting for speaker's natural pause it can seem as if the individual is disinterested in the subject rather than intensely interested. Knowing your listener helps resolve this potential misunderstanding. 

 

One does not have to have an auditory processing challenge to accidentally interrupt someone. Some highly charged conversations filled with excitement and fueled by enthusiasm can produce the same interruption effect. 

Similarly, conversations to which little enthusiasm is applied can also result in interrupting. An attempt to "get the conversation over with" so as to move along with one's day indicates a lack of interest in the subject material and results in one person succinctly (sometimes, impatiently) summarizing the other person's premise in order to arrive to the "point" of the matter.  Here, listening has been replaced by processing alone. 

 

Effective listening starts with concentrated listening combined with knowledge on the subject matter. As such we are selective with whom we share certain information. With strangers, we discuss the weather or non-emotive news headlines. With friends, we discuss our vacations, hobbies and shared interests. With close friends and family, we discuss our lives. With colleagues, we discuss our projects. With ourselves, we discuss all of our discussions prior to having them. 

Just as listening is important to effective communication, so too is knowing what to share with whom and when. Setting the stage for effective communication requires our knowing when to say something and when to remain quiet. This is perhaps the most difficult part of the language experience. 

Relying on the less is more approach can result in a mystery. Others wonder what is being left out and why. 

On Balloons

What is this miraculously connected attunement I feel toward my balloon? What does this affinity reveal about the essence of my own nature? What does that shiny, vibrant sphere bring into my modus of understanding and how can or will it remain in that status? 

Knowing one's own balloon is not the same thing as simply acquiring new knowledge in a new landscape with a new animal to guide the way. Knowing one's own balloon requires full existential involvement.

To keep your balloon inflated throughout your many dreams and with your many guides and companions, you must adopt a kind of Heideggean philosophy, you must not take seriously the possibility of total reduction of spirit to plain intelligence. 

For Heidegger, preservation of spirit as a wholeness of being became the central theme of his philosophy. Thinking is authentic, constitutive only if it is an existential outcry, if it is the voice of being. 

But what about my balloon? Can I truly sense it in its silenced presence of being? If my vision of a balloon, my understanding of my balloon is misguided, do I then stop seeing the balloon?  

Directing our focus back onto ourselves, beyond the place of doubt and straight and shallow superficiality, we uproot our self from consciousness with liberating thoughts... 

thoughts that eventually lead to the oblivion of being, to the popping of our own balloon. 

Heidegger calls this the emasculation of the spirit...

As Heidegger puts it "the spirit falsified into intelligence thus falls to the level of a tool in the service of others, a tool the manipulation of which can be taught and learned" (Heidegger, p. 248). 

~ surrounded by a sort of spiritual gravity, the closer we are to the center of ourselves, the higher our balloons rise and the more clearly our essence of being can perceive the world. 

In honor of keeping a healthy, constitutive tension between spiritual awareness of being and intellectual reflection ...

Don't Be A Sucker

How many people claim more than they can prove? Since we only have access to our own beliefs with no neutral access to the facts as they are in themselves, we can only compare our beliefs with reality in the hopes that they are accurate. 

Speaking of truth and accuracy, I'd like to invent a time machine and travel back to the moment when the first Bozo said that truth and accuracy were supreme and stuff a lollipop in his mouth before he has a chance to utter those words. Blindly reducing accuracy to a theory ignores the legitimate concerns of finding happiness. It would seem the desire for truth and accuracy clouds our ability to enjoy a simple lollipop without questioning its nature.