A
Commentary on “The Need For Husserl’s Rational Intersubjectivity To Prevent
Further Adverse Effects Of Science & Technology On Life & Ethics,” by
Gabrielle Aruta
By
Dave Backer,
1) I would like to hear the author talk about what
he would do if he had ultimate decision power over the direction of our
cultural values to apply his idea. What is his ideal society? How are people educated?
What does the economy look like? Should everyone learn Husserl's reduction
arguments, is it possible that everyone is able to do this? What would
public education look like as a result? Also, akin to this, how should we in
our daily lives (consumed by email, cellphones, TV, ipods) integrate Husserl's
intersubjectivity into our decisions and actions. How
do we start the process of healing?
2) One question I always have when I begin to
think about the role of technology in society is whether or not it is, in fact,
"unnatural" that all these weird, troublesome scientific and
technological advancements are coming about at an increasing rate. I wonder if
our cities, our smog, our air-conditioning, our defibrillators are all natural
extensions of humanity. I wonder if technology is what we do, and therefore, to
some degree, being technological is a way that we are. I certainly don't know
enough about Heidegger's conception of Being and his arguments about Technology
to argue against this, but it's always an interesting question to bat
around...and if our technologizing is natural, then should we augment our
worries about its hiding our being.
3) I'm wondering which technologies are better and worse according to the author's arguments. He writes that "practical and helpful" technologies are alright...but these criteria are scarily uncertain. The people that mass produce and advertise the technologies we might think are the worst probably think that their products are "practical and helpful." Where do we draw the line here?◦
©David Backer, 2006