I'd really heartily encourage people to listen to that fascinating interview with Hurbert Dreyfus. I have to admit I've not read any of Dreyfus' computer or AI books. But his comments about the internet really were very interesting and thought provoking. The interview doesn't require any kind of heavy philosophical background either. Those familiar with Dreyfus will recognize the themes though. Dreyfus is a big believer in accepting risk. This arises partially out of Heidegger's notion of care with a heavy dose of Kierkegaard thrown in as well.
The basic idea is that the internet is a problem, especially in our communities. Why? Because the kinds of relationships we have don't involve risk. That is I can write a horribly offensive email because the kind of risk I put forth is fundamentally different from what I'd be putting forward if I were to say those things face to face. The danger of internet based learning and philosophy is that because our dialog is dis-embodied we lose that kind of risk we can put forward.
Now obviously one can put forth a few objections. One example. A friend of mine text messaged a friend after a date saying how great the date went, talking about the guy. Unfortunately she sent the message to her date rather than her friend. So to say that there is no risk involved in internet communications seems wrong. The risks are different but in some ways the risks are greater. We've all misaddressed mail or had some kind of risk in our computer usage.
Still, there is a fundamental truth in what Dreyfus says. It's an interesting question that I thought about when I listened to the other MP3 I had on the sidebar that I finally had a chance to listen to last night. (Unfortunately it was one of the links I lost - but it was a Stanford show on Heidegger and introducing his thought) There they mentioned that Heidegger was interesting in that he lectured a lot but didn't write a lot of books. (Something one can miss given how many books there are under his name - but most are lectures or compilations from lecture notes) Even his magnum opus, Being and Time, was more or less forced out of him, I'm told. The interviewer suggested that Socrates was one of the pure philosophers because with him his philosophy was embodied in a way that books don't allow. Dreyfus mentioned this same point.
It's probably true that this is why Plato wrote in dialogs with few doing this after him. The focus subtly changes, perhaps away from thinking and more into propositional analysis. That kind of fundamental questioning, some might say, is harder without that face to face presence and risk.
Is this true?
I admit I'm dubious. I immediately thought, when listening to Dreyfus, of Derrida's critique of the privileging of voice over writing - which I think is a way of critiquing an analysis of embodiment in terms of presence rather than absence. A move or emphasis that Heidegger definitely takes in his later works as well.
The question then becomes, what kind of risk is associated with absence? The absence of the author. I think my example of the misdirected email is an obvious one. Because the words survive the loss of the author, the author loses control. The risk with writing is risk precisely because of my absence. Because I'm not there to direct who reads or doesn't read my work or more importantly how they read it. Dreyfus brings up the feedback of body language that lets me adjust my discourse. But the risk in writing precisely is that I don't have that adjustment. I have less control. In that lack of control I have to put forth an effort where I can fail spectacularly.
And, as I've struggled to think through issues I've certainly failed spectacularly. I've been challenged and realized that what I wrote wasn't well written or was just plain wrong. Dreyfus would suggest, it appears, that because of the distance involved that I don't risk embarrassment. But I just don't think that's true. I can think of a few blogging situations just within the last year that I've had that would argue otherwise.
That's not to say I disagree completely with Dreyfus. There is a kind of alienation and a lack of recognizing the Other in internet communications. It takes more effort. So it's not that we can't offer risk and engagement. It's just that it takes a bit more effort.
PS - it took me a minute to figure the show out. I'd got it from Enowning but when I played it I could have sworn the music sounded familiar. (This was before learning it was a BYU Podcast) I then figured out it was If You Could Hie To Kolob. (The music of which is actually from an old Scottish drinking song if I recall - something I always find funny when it's sung at Church)
Dreyfus has in his new book apparently an example of how embodiment is important for learning that is from his talking to the BYU Football coach. Kind of funny. (Especially considering their record the past few years)
I enjoyed his lecture you posted a while back on the internet. Fundamentally, I think he is correct regarding risk. There is a different risk factor that being one of privacy, but there is a measure of calculation that the internet allows for, even in the most "real time" exchanges.
Had I posted it before? I thought I had after I listened a while but couldn't find it.
I think the lack of risk is because it's easier to "hide yourself" behind various representations and masks. You can do that in face to face encounters too, of course. (As I think Derrida often discusses) But it does seem that the "reifying" tendency is more common as we become more and more distanced in the encounter. It's all too easy to think we're just dealing with words.
But what does it mean to be "distanced" in the encounter? The starting point online might be very "distant" but people usually reveal more and more of themselves online in many different ways as the amount of time they spend there increases. I think it can become risky (as you say). The starting points in real life might be more intimate but the mind finds way to adjust and "distance" itself. How much risk is there when knocking on your 2034th door while tracting? How much risk is there in giving your 5000th lecture on Heidegger in a classroom? How much recognition of the "Other" is there in a precisely executed military operation? It seems coping with many things in life involves distancing.
I agree. Further people might be more comfortable and able to open up (reveal, de-distance) aspects of themselves that they wouldn't in face to face.
But I think Dreyfus' point might be not that there isn't distancing in face-to-face nor that there isn't unveiling in computers, merely that more is revealed easier in face-to-face. As you suggest though, after one has repeated a lecture enough it becomes route. It becomes technology. And I think clearly that is what Dreyfus is working against. But in becoming route and technologized we lose our risk. And that's what I think Dreyfus wants to introduce. Thus the appeal to Socrates as doing real philosophy as opposed to the routine of philosophical laborers. (To borrow Nietzsche's term)
I just listened to the lecture. It was a great reminder to stop any and all interactions in blogging, surely the single worst communication medium since the invention of grunting. I had stopped blogging for many moons, but for some quirky reason I commented on this blog today. Since God is a merciful God, he plopped this lecture on my head to remind me to cease and desist from blogging. I may have sinned today in blogging, but as a merciful God He will forgive me if I but repent and promise to not do it again.
I would like to make a request, if I comment here again, someone please shame me very rudely. Remind me that there is work to do and real people to interact with. Call me names, give me a virtual kick in the rear. Much thanks.
David,
That seems a little drastic. I haven't listened to the lecture, but from what I read in Clark's post, it seems that this guy is merely pointing out a limitation, and maybe even a problem with internet communcation, but do you think he really thinks that there is absolutely no good that comes from this type of communication? I enjoy internet communcation for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is nobody else I know can stand to have prolonged discussions on these type of topics. Another reason is it gives me a change to somehow objectify my thoughts, and put them out there to examined and even criticized. Also I'm not the type of person to rock the boat, but many of my thoughts would rock the boat, and I hate keeping them to myself, so the internet gives me the ability to get them out of my head. Even though I do see the problems with blogging, I think there are just as many postive aspects of it.
I tend to think face to face discussion is better, but the fact is that for many of us now working for a living and out of college, face to face discussion is hard to come by. I also think it helpful, especially in philosophy, to be able to do a bit of research for ones comments. The downside of face to face discussion is those thoughtful pauses don't happen. You just can't have a discussion that lasts a week or more with periods of an hour or two to do research in between.
BTW - the other podcast I was thinking of that was similar to this one (I couldn't recall if it was the same) was actually one from Berkeley on Dreyfus podcast on nihilism and the internet. Pretty similar in some regards.
Clark, I haven't posted here in some time, but since I am an avid wanna-be Irish whistle player, I've got to tell you that the tune for "If you could hie to Kolob" is Kingsfold (LDS use a version transcribed by Ralph Vaughan Williams). The tune Kingsfold comes from an older, and famous, Scottish tune: "Star of the County Down." I have no doubt it's been played in pubs, but it is not really a drinking song.
Here's a link to Star of the County Down:
http://www.contemplator.com/ireland/star.html
And to prove I can play on Irish whistle, I'm linking to this clip of me playing "Kingsfold":
http://tinwhistletunes.com/clipssnip/Audio/02-06/KingsfoldKeithL.mp3
I now return you from this diversion from philosophy.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble