I've been fascinated by the relationship between culture and technology recently. So, I've decided that it will be one of the major themes of this blog. Every so often I'll write about these two notions in an attempt to systematize their relationship.
This is my primary question:
How does technology affect culture, and vice versa?
First, my definitions of the two terms.
By 'culture' I mean both the beliefs, positive and normative, of a particular community and the ways in which those beliefs are expressed. A community can be grouped in any particular way. Positive beliefs are beliefs about purported states of affairs of the world. Examples of positive beliefs include the following:
Barack Obama was the president of the United States in 2010.
A water molecule is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
A square has four sides that are equal in length.
Normative beliefs are value-laden beliefs. They express claims regarding what is good, bad, moral, immoral, beautiful, or ugly. Here are some examples.
Nickelback is the worst band of all time.
Murder is wrong.
I should write a thank you note to my job interviewer.
This sandwich is delicious.
Here are examples of different aspects of culture.
Arts & Entertainment
Politics & Government
Religion
Education
Scholarship
Business, Economy and Industry
Public Health
Family, Relationships, and Sex
Food & Drink
Media and Communication
I think these categories exhaust all the aspects. You can get more aspects of culture by combining various categories. Do these categories exhaust the non-reducible aspects of culture? I'm not sure. I may not have enough, or too many. If I need to change things, I'll come back and revise.
My definition of culture is intentionally broad. Is it too broad? Does it all certain things to be defined as culture that really aren't culture? Maybe. But, this should work for now. If I need to tighten up the definition, I'll come back and revise.
Similarly, my definition of 'technology' is broad. Technology is any means apart from the human body itself that mankind uses to engage with the surrounding environment. As with culture, here are the different categories of technology.
Food and Drink
Transportation
Communication
Medicine
Infrastructure
Housing
Communication
Warfare
Clothing
Energy
Manufacturing
This list is surely inconclusive. I'll come back and revise if needed.
So, now I've got a working definition of culture and technology. It's time to start waxing philosophical about how these two relate.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
My dissertation: Overview
My dissertation is about the epistemology of metaphysics.
So, what's epistemology? Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and all other related concepts. The central question in epistemology is, "What is knowledge?" Put another way, we can ask, "Under what conditions does an individual know a certain claim?" Traditionally, philosophers have thought that there were three such conditions that had to be jointly satisfied. Let's consider whether James knows that p, where 'p' stands for any particular claim, like the claim that Jimi Hendrix was born in Seattle, WA. Here are the conditions.
1. Belief
In order for James to know that p, James has to believe that p. You can't know anything if you don't believe it.
2. Truth
In order for James to know that p, p has to be true. You can't know something that's false. For instance, you can't know that Jimi Hendrix played a show at Madison Square Garden in 2011.
3. Justification
In order for James to know that p, James's belief in p has to be justified. What does this mean? For a belief to be justified, it has to have an adequate amount of "support." There are lots of theories about how a belief is supported. For instance, maybe the belief in question is supported by other beliefs that you have. An example of this would be a mathematical proof. Or, maybe the belief is produced by some kind of cognitive process that is deemed reliable. For instance, most people believe that your physical senses are reliable for the most part, so a belief that comes from the senses would be justified.
Now, there's lots of debate as to whether this is the correct analysis of knowledge. Lots of people think that this isn't enough, and that we need a few more conditions. I'm not going to get into all that for know. The concept that is most pertinent for my project is that of justification. I'll come back to this in a sec.
Let's move on to metaphysics. What is metaphysics? This is a tad bit harder to describe. Metaphysics is basically the study of reality. But wait, doesn't science study reality, too? What's the difference between metaphysics and science? There are two ways to differentiate between academic subjects. The first is by their method of inquiry. What does a subject do to acquire new information? The most familiar method is the scientific method. Other disciplines will have their own distinct method. The second is by subject matter. This is more familiar to us. Biology and chemistry share the same method, but differ on the sorts of things that they study.
So, how do metaphysics and science differ? Depending on who you ask, these subjects can differ in either method, subject matter, or both. Most agree that metaphysics and science differ with respect to subject matter. Metaphysics is about aspects of reality that are more general than the sorts of things that science gets into. For instance, the subject matter of metaphysics includes the nature of causation, properties, sameness and change, laws of nature, existence, time, space, possibility, etc.
Most metaphysicians working in colleges and universities will argue that the methods employed in metaphysics are similar to those employed in science, especially in theoretical physics. This is an open debate, however. I'll have something to say about this in my dissertation, but I'll get to it later.
Okay, now that I've said a little bit about what metaphysics and epistemology are, let me get into what my dissertation is about. Hopefully everything that I've said above made sense. If not, let me know!
In my dissertation, I will develop a theory of epistemic justification with respect to beliefs about metaphysical claims.
What are metaphysical claims? Metaphysical claims are those sorts of claims that metaphysicians investigate and debate about. Here are some examples.
1. The ability to choose freely is incompatible with the claim that all events are caused by past events and the laws of nature.
2. God does not exist.
3. Past and future events exist in the same way as the present moment exists.
4. Causation isn't "real." That is, causation is just patterns that we observe.
5. Abstract objects, like numbers, exist, just like concrete objects exist.
I gave a brief explanation above what epistemic justification is all about. What I'll be doing in my dissertation is coming up with a way of understanding how beliefs about these kinds of claims can be justified, i.e. rationally supported. What does this theory look like? I'll get into the different parts of it in later posts.
So, what's epistemology? Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and all other related concepts. The central question in epistemology is, "What is knowledge?" Put another way, we can ask, "Under what conditions does an individual know a certain claim?" Traditionally, philosophers have thought that there were three such conditions that had to be jointly satisfied. Let's consider whether James knows that p, where 'p' stands for any particular claim, like the claim that Jimi Hendrix was born in Seattle, WA. Here are the conditions.
1. Belief
In order for James to know that p, James has to believe that p. You can't know anything if you don't believe it.
2. Truth
In order for James to know that p, p has to be true. You can't know something that's false. For instance, you can't know that Jimi Hendrix played a show at Madison Square Garden in 2011.
3. Justification
In order for James to know that p, James's belief in p has to be justified. What does this mean? For a belief to be justified, it has to have an adequate amount of "support." There are lots of theories about how a belief is supported. For instance, maybe the belief in question is supported by other beliefs that you have. An example of this would be a mathematical proof. Or, maybe the belief is produced by some kind of cognitive process that is deemed reliable. For instance, most people believe that your physical senses are reliable for the most part, so a belief that comes from the senses would be justified.
Now, there's lots of debate as to whether this is the correct analysis of knowledge. Lots of people think that this isn't enough, and that we need a few more conditions. I'm not going to get into all that for know. The concept that is most pertinent for my project is that of justification. I'll come back to this in a sec.
Let's move on to metaphysics. What is metaphysics? This is a tad bit harder to describe. Metaphysics is basically the study of reality. But wait, doesn't science study reality, too? What's the difference between metaphysics and science? There are two ways to differentiate between academic subjects. The first is by their method of inquiry. What does a subject do to acquire new information? The most familiar method is the scientific method. Other disciplines will have their own distinct method. The second is by subject matter. This is more familiar to us. Biology and chemistry share the same method, but differ on the sorts of things that they study.
So, how do metaphysics and science differ? Depending on who you ask, these subjects can differ in either method, subject matter, or both. Most agree that metaphysics and science differ with respect to subject matter. Metaphysics is about aspects of reality that are more general than the sorts of things that science gets into. For instance, the subject matter of metaphysics includes the nature of causation, properties, sameness and change, laws of nature, existence, time, space, possibility, etc.
Most metaphysicians working in colleges and universities will argue that the methods employed in metaphysics are similar to those employed in science, especially in theoretical physics. This is an open debate, however. I'll have something to say about this in my dissertation, but I'll get to it later.
Okay, now that I've said a little bit about what metaphysics and epistemology are, let me get into what my dissertation is about. Hopefully everything that I've said above made sense. If not, let me know!
In my dissertation, I will develop a theory of epistemic justification with respect to beliefs about metaphysical claims.
What are metaphysical claims? Metaphysical claims are those sorts of claims that metaphysicians investigate and debate about. Here are some examples.
1. The ability to choose freely is incompatible with the claim that all events are caused by past events and the laws of nature.
2. God does not exist.
3. Past and future events exist in the same way as the present moment exists.
4. Causation isn't "real." That is, causation is just patterns that we observe.
5. Abstract objects, like numbers, exist, just like concrete objects exist.
I gave a brief explanation above what epistemic justification is all about. What I'll be doing in my dissertation is coming up with a way of understanding how beliefs about these kinds of claims can be justified, i.e. rationally supported. What does this theory look like? I'll get into the different parts of it in later posts.
What this blog is about
Ultimately this blog is about me trying to write as much as possible. What I write will more or less fall into these categories.
1. Philosophy and dissertation related stuff.
Nothing that I write here will presuppose any background knowledge in philosophy. My goal is to be able to communicate my own research in a manner that is accessible without overly distorting or caricaturing the content. Click here for an overview of what my dissertation is about.
2. Culture and technology
I think a lot about culture, and the way that technology affects culture, and vice versa. A lot of what I post here will be my reflections on this relationship. Click here before you start reading the other stuff on culture and technology.
3. Pedagogy
I like to teach. I like to think that I'm good at it, but I'm certainly nowhere near as good as I should be. Sometimes I'll post on my thoughts on teaching and how I could be better at it.
4. Thoughts on stuff that I read.
A lot of my posts will be links to interesting things that I come across online. Every now and then I'll post reflections on the books that I read.
5. Personal stuff
This blog will not be a "diary" as the word is normally understood. However, once in a blue moon I might post thoughts and reflections on topics of a more personal nature. This is only place on the internet where I feel that I can safely write these things.
If you're reading this blog, you probably know me in person. If you do know me, or even if you don't, please help me by providing as many questions, comments, or objections as you can. This will provide me with further incentive to write. I promise that I will try to answer every serious comment that I receive.
Also, if you're curious, the name of this blog is "Gnothi Seauton," which is translated "Know Thyself." The phrase is inscribed in the Temple of Apollos at Delphi.
If you're reading this blog, you probably know me in person. If you do know me, or even if you don't, please help me by providing as many questions, comments, or objections as you can. This will provide me with further incentive to write. I promise that I will try to answer every serious comment that I receive.
Also, if you're curious, the name of this blog is "Gnothi Seauton," which is translated "Know Thyself." The phrase is inscribed in the Temple of Apollos at Delphi.