My presentation went very well today, mostly because of those two guys in my Argumentation Theory class who just sweep us all up into magical discussion.
Those two guys (ﾉ◕‿◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧
Technology “is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function” (x)
Technology is not in contrast with any notable human societies or communities. Even the most “primitive” or “natural” human societies makes use of tools, techniques, and craft for problem-solving, goal oriented action.
The difference being is that some technological craft is based on synthetic or man made materials, and some is based on non-artificial resources. We have been using technology since the day homo sapien decided to utilize fire for our own desires and needs.
Thus the dichotomy “nature vs. technology” does not exist. The only possible dichotomy that relies on a divide between “human” and “nature” is synthetic man-made artifacts and non-synthetic resources. There is a distinction that can be made between human directed change and change directed by other sentient creatures or non-sentient organisms. There are “things that humans make” vs. “things that plants make”. There are also plants that humans make that make things humans use. So the distinction between human and nature is a fuzzy one at best sometimes.
If you want to say that technology is evil or it is the source of all human destruction, at least be consistent about it. If I ask you to join me in some basket weaving or help growing an apple tree, say to me, “I cannot participate in your vile technology!”
Legally, she can’t force me out of my apartment.
Legally, people aren’t allowed to murder other people.
Shit still happens.
I’ve reached 3,400 followers, my group presentation is under control, and it’s feasible for me to finish my 12 page paper and 8 page paper by Friday. The things that are within my control are going pretty well, and the things outside my control (family, finances, and friends) are pretty terrible.
By a Stoic’s standards, I should be content.
For years mental health professionals taught people that they could be psychologically healthy without social support, that “unless you love yourself, no one else will love you.”…The truth is, you cannot love yourself unless you have been loved and are loved. The capacity to love cannot be built in isolation
Canadians have currently replaced the greeting “Have a good day!” with “Hope your pipes don’t freeze!”
But for real how can people say things like: “They were treated like livestock” or “You’re an animal” or “Like lambs to the slaughter” and then not realize that they’re comparing human suffering, which they care about, to animal suffering, which they apparently don’t care about.
Like you can’t use the cruel practices you endorse as a comparison tool for human pain and then deny that those practices are cruel.
This. A thousand times this.
Nobody gets their pants in a puff about comparing human and animal suffering when people say things like “They’re being treated like animals!” but even so much as mention that humans and non-human animals both feel pain and have the capacity to suffer and suddenly you’re accused of saying there’s nothing different between the widespread historical slavery of people of colour and factory farming.
"Unjust comparisons between two forms of cruelty is wrong… unless it benefits humans."
Life: I think I’ve been a bit too needy and demanding with people lately. This tough week has made me feel very vulnerable to failure, I don’t want to lose touch with anyone simply because I’m under a lot of stress.
But I’ve changed a lot since living in this apartment. I’m more afraid of life, more tired. Less ambitious. I tend not to be dramatic about most things, but it does feel like something inside me has died or just given up on life.
I listen to more classical music. I drink more liquids. I’m afraid to be alone.
The best thing is having a physical copy of the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Whether you need it for essays or studying or just want to flip through randomly and learn something new on a Saturday night. I only have the first edition (published in 1995, but hey, how often do things really change in philosophy), but I encourage others to acquire the second edition.
Additionally, if you plan to go into philosophy but don’t know what the academic climate is yet, reading casually through the Oxford Companion will give you a good feel of which topics have been taking importance in the field over the last 10-20 years and which are being ignored (by how long the entries for that subject are, how detailed they are, etc.) Going into philosophy blindly can be a bit scary because you aren’t sure if what you consider the most important aspects in philosophy are heralded or shunned by your faculty.
Another excerpt from the Bakunin reading I’m doing for my essay:
…the mass of the proletariat, growing as a result of the general increase of the population — which, as we know, not even poverty can stop effectively — and through the increasing proletarianization of the petty-bourgeoisie, ex-owners, capitalists, merchants, and industrialists — growing, as I have said, at a much more rapid rate than the productive capacities of an economy that is exploited by bourgeois capital — this growing mass of the proletariat is placed in a condition wherein the workers are forced into disastrous competition against one another.
For since they possess no other means of existence but their own manual labor, they are driven, by the fear of seeing themselves replaced by others, to sell it at the lowest price. This tendency of the workers, or rather the necessity to which they are condemned by their own poverty, combined with the tendency of the employers to sell the products of their workers, and consequently buy their labor, at the lowest price, constantly reproduces and consolidates the poverty of the proletariat. Since he finds himself in a state of poverty, the worker is compelled to sell his labor for almost nothing, and because he sells that product for almost nothing, he sinks into ever greater poverty.
Yes, greater misery, indeed! For in this galley-slave labor the productive force of the workers, abused, ruthlessly exploited, excessively wasted and underfed, is rapidly used up. And once used up, what can be its value on the market, of what worth is this sole commodity which he possesses and upon the daily sale of which he depends for a livelihood? Nothing! And then? Then nothing is left for the worker but to die.
What is property, what is capital in their present form? For the capitalist and the property owner they mean the power and the right, guaranteed by the State, to live without working. And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor — that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the work of someone else, the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. Note that I have left out of account altogether the following question: In what way did property and capital ever fall into the hands of their present owners? This is a question which, when envisaged from the points of view of history, logic, and justice, cannot be answered in any other way but one which would serve as an indictment against the present owners. I shall therefore confine myself here to the statement that property owners and capitalists, inasmuch as they live not by their own productive labor but by getting land rent, house rent, interest upon their capital, or by speculation on land, buildings, and capital, or by the commercial and industrial exploitation of the manual labor of the proletariat, all live at the expense of the proletariat.
On a lighter note (because I’ll end up killing myself if I stress too much over this presentation + 15 page essay + 8 page essay week), there are some people who you’ve known for a while or have just seen around a lot and suddenly you just think, wow, they’re kind of cute. How come I never noticed?
What is that? Why is that? Did they suddenly become attractive, or did you just begin to recognize it? Or maybe you’re just in the sort of mind that finds people cute. Sometimes I have days where I just want to compliment basically everyone. Like, your argument on the epiphenomenal qualia presented by Jackson in this article is pretty solid, also, your blouse is super cute. Or, I understand your problems with accepting that downward causation has any redeemable qualities but that hairstyle you’re trying out is really working for you.
In any case, dear readers, you are all probably very cute.
Congrats on that. Keep up the good work.