horridgoblyn t1_itsv00v wrote

Technology as mastery. The suggestion of, "The daring young men and their flying machines". Early science was portrayed as a manly act, one of mastery over nature. The view was promoted by the Royal Society. Heidegger's cautions on the glorification of technology are almost a counterpoint to this power narrative. Does the artisan become something less than their tools as they become more advanced? What do we lose from ourselves when we become more invested in them? Maybe we lose some of ourselves and lose our connection to our sense of self and the world we use them in. Claiming mastery our sense of wonder dies. 25 years ago or more I wrote a paper on Heidegger and Kierkegaard. My prof didn't like it and said it read more like a sermon than a paper. I thought that was the point.


horridgoblyn t1_ith9bow wrote

Assuming everyone played ball it would create a better society. As it stands in spite of the prevalence of self described free and critical thinkers they don't appreciate having their beliefs (chosen deliberately) challenged.

The second trouble group are more interactive, but hold similar ideas. They will engage readily. I think there is a Cliff's Notes on obfuscation of debates and suggestion techniques. The problem is that the people who try to engage in this behavior pitiful.

Effective manipulation demands social skills and some degree of empathy to read others to convince them. "Master debaters" have neither.

Formal debate doesn't end in consensus. Informal debate can, but more often the interaction provides understanding. You learn about the person as well as the ideas they hold. Open discourse broadens and energizes minds. We are all better for exchanging information and learning from one another. In a better world this is,who we would be. It isn't our way and it serves the society we have not to be like this.