That's an awful lot of words to basically say that "Cyborg discourse" understanding of human relationship with technology is in itself an application of the categorization fallacy (where something...
That's an awful lot of words to basically say that "Cyborg discourse" understanding of human relationship with technology is in itself an application of the categorization fallacy (where something is solved if it is named).
The article is well written and compelling, but of course calling an argument out for a fallacy successfully would be compelling. It's easy to claim reason to doubt a given thesis.
It is interesting to me that the first example the author gets into is possibly the thorniest question ever to be debated: what is human nature (and does it, and how quickly does it, change)? I have my own firm view of what human nature generally is, and I have to say I haven't been too successful in convincing many people who have firm views of human nature of their own. The reason is simple: the evidence for any view of human nature is incredibly fuzzy and inseparable from the culture within which we're talking or observing.
Personally I think any philosophy that ignores social intelligence and pressure is missing a key ingredient in their explanation of humanity. We seem to have a great deal of groupthink wired into us cutting to the core of who we are. So I have to confess I'm an easy sell on this sort of reluctance to examine humanity's relationship with technology solely from the perspective on individual human beings' interactions with technology. I recognize that saying as much labels me as somewhat antagonistic to the idea of a wholly individual-focused idea of social structure and philosophy, and I think that's probably a fair cop.
That's an awful lot of words to basically say that "Cyborg discourse" understanding of human relationship with technology is in itself an application of the categorization fallacy (where something is solved if it is named).
The article is well written and compelling, but of course calling an argument out for a fallacy successfully would be compelling. It's easy to claim reason to doubt a given thesis.
It is interesting to me that the first example the author gets into is possibly the thorniest question ever to be debated: what is human nature (and does it, and how quickly does it, change)? I have my own firm view of what human nature generally is, and I have to say I haven't been too successful in convincing many people who have firm views of human nature of their own. The reason is simple: the evidence for any view of human nature is incredibly fuzzy and inseparable from the culture within which we're talking or observing.
Personally I think any philosophy that ignores social intelligence and pressure is missing a key ingredient in their explanation of humanity. We seem to have a great deal of groupthink wired into us cutting to the core of who we are. So I have to confess I'm an easy sell on this sort of reluctance to examine humanity's relationship with technology solely from the perspective on individual human beings' interactions with technology. I recognize that saying as much labels me as somewhat antagonistic to the idea of a wholly individual-focused idea of social structure and philosophy, and I think that's probably a fair cop.