So part of the standard story that you get in Christian theology is that everyone is sinful and requires redemption from God. But why is everyone sinful?
Here are a few ways to answer this question.
Everyone is already sinful at conception, birth, or whenever you have the emergence of a human person.
Everyone will eventually sin at some point in their lives, when they do, they are sinful and need God's redemption.
Let's start with that second answer. Is it true that EVERYONE will eventually sin? Is it possible for someone to go their whole life without actually sinning? It seems that the general consensus answer among theologians is no, although I am not entirely sure. If the answer is no, then the next question is, "why not?"
One answer is that everyone is born with a defect that will inevitably result in the committing of a sin of some sort. Okay, so where did this defect come from?
Now we have two choices, either people are sinful, i.e. guilty before God, right from the start, or they have a defect that will inevitably lead to sin. Either option raises the same basic question: why?
The standard answer is that we inherited this condition from Adam, i.e. the first man and also the first person (along with Eve) to sin against God. Because of Adam's sin, we are also sinful. This is puzzling. Why should I, or anyone else, be held responsible for the acts of one man (and woman)?
Let's suppose that it is indeed the case that I am sinful before God because of the disobedience of Adam. it seems to follow that I am in some responsible for what he did. If that is true, then shouldn't it also be true that I am responsible for the acts of my parents, grandparents, and all of my ancestors? If not, why not? Why is the case with Adam exceptional? How is it that the sin of Adam is transmitted through the generations, but no one else's?
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Travel and technology
Traveling, i.e. going to from point A to point B, was initially done out of the need to find food. You traveled to follow herds of buffalo, or to find where the edible plants are in season. I'm guessing that travel was done initially by foot. Then come animal domestication, followed by mechanical forms of travel.
Technological advances in travel allow for more people to travel greater distances in shorter periods of time. What sort of cultural consequences are there to technological advances in travel?
As societies became agrarian, groups traveled in order to look for arable land. It was inevitable that as more people were able come into contact with other groups. This led to such consequences as trade, conflict, cooperation, etc.
Technological advances in travel are accompanied by at least two cultural consequences.
First, travelers are able to physically interact with more people. The further you can go in a shorter period of time, the more opportunities you will have to interact with more people.
Second, technological advances in travel allow individuals to travel for leisure, rather than out of necessity. This comes in at least two forms. First, the mode of travel itself can be a recreational activity, like horseback riding, driving, flying airplanes, etc. Second, destinations can now be purely recreational, like camping, going to the beach, skiing, etc.
Now, suppose that something like teleportation were possible. Suppose that people could travel anywhere in the world in a moment's time. It would take me just as much time to travel from New York to China as it would take me to walk from my bedroom to my kitchen. At this point, it seems that there is no longer travel in the sense that there is some kind of process or journey. Older forms of travel are now done solely out of recreation. What would society be like if everyone were able to travel via instantaneous teleportation?
Technological advances in travel allow for more people to travel greater distances in shorter periods of time. What sort of cultural consequences are there to technological advances in travel?
As societies became agrarian, groups traveled in order to look for arable land. It was inevitable that as more people were able come into contact with other groups. This led to such consequences as trade, conflict, cooperation, etc.
Technological advances in travel are accompanied by at least two cultural consequences.
First, travelers are able to physically interact with more people. The further you can go in a shorter period of time, the more opportunities you will have to interact with more people.
Second, technological advances in travel allow individuals to travel for leisure, rather than out of necessity. This comes in at least two forms. First, the mode of travel itself can be a recreational activity, like horseback riding, driving, flying airplanes, etc. Second, destinations can now be purely recreational, like camping, going to the beach, skiing, etc.
Now, suppose that something like teleportation were possible. Suppose that people could travel anywhere in the world in a moment's time. It would take me just as much time to travel from New York to China as it would take me to walk from my bedroom to my kitchen. At this point, it seems that there is no longer travel in the sense that there is some kind of process or journey. Older forms of travel are now done solely out of recreation. What would society be like if everyone were able to travel via instantaneous teleportation?
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Substantitive vs. shallow ethnic identification
I identify as a Korean-American. I do so simply because I am an American citizen, and I believe that my ancestry goes back through Korea for quite some time.
I would imagine that this is typically how people identify with respect to their ethnicity. However, there are other ways of thinking about this.
Suppose you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Korea, but who was adopted and raised by a white American couple. Suppose also that you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Europe, but who was adopted by a Korean couple in Korea. Who would you say was more "Korean?" Do both have equal claims at identifying as Korean?
When it comes to identifying as an ethnicity or nationality, genealogy matters, of course. But if all you have is genealogy, then it seems that your identification is shallow. Substantive ethnic identification involves more than just being born into a certain family tree. One has to be deeply embedded in the culture of said ethnicity.
There are at least three ways of engaging in culture.
1. Consumption and production of commodities
This includes stuff like making and and eating an ethnicity's food, wearing ethnic clothing, consuming entertainment produced by that ethnicity, etc.
2. Compliance with norms, customs, and practices
This is stuff like dining etiquette, rules of the road, entertaining guests, participating in religious and social rituals like marriages and funerals, etc.
3. Language
This is self-explanatory. This is attaining fluency in the language associated with the ethnicity in question.
I listed the above in what I take to be the order of shallowest forms of engagement to the most substantive. It seems clear to me that the most substantive way of really engaging in a culture is to master its language. In fact, you won't even be able to do the other two very well without fluency in the ethnicity's language. Language allows one to understand an ethnicity's perspective and worldview. I hold that without fluency in the language, ethnic identification remains shallow.
This means that although I identify as Korean-American, my ethnic identification as Korean is pretty shallow. I can speak some Korean, but my language skill is pretty rudimentary. I eat Korean food, know what to do during Korean holidays, know how to interact with my elders, etc. But all this is merely rote behavior. I don't have the ability to read Korean at a high level, so I can't read Korean commentary on Confucius. Nor can I read the famous Korean poets and storytellers. My linguistic limitations prevent me from really taking on the Korean mindset, and thus keeps me from really identifying with Korean culture.
I would imagine that this is typically how people identify with respect to their ethnicity. However, there are other ways of thinking about this.
Suppose you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Korea, but who was adopted and raised by a white American couple. Suppose also that you have an individual whose biological parents have ancestries in Europe, but who was adopted by a Korean couple in Korea. Who would you say was more "Korean?" Do both have equal claims at identifying as Korean?
When it comes to identifying as an ethnicity or nationality, genealogy matters, of course. But if all you have is genealogy, then it seems that your identification is shallow. Substantive ethnic identification involves more than just being born into a certain family tree. One has to be deeply embedded in the culture of said ethnicity.
There are at least three ways of engaging in culture.
1. Consumption and production of commodities
This includes stuff like making and and eating an ethnicity's food, wearing ethnic clothing, consuming entertainment produced by that ethnicity, etc.
2. Compliance with norms, customs, and practices
This is stuff like dining etiquette, rules of the road, entertaining guests, participating in religious and social rituals like marriages and funerals, etc.
3. Language
This is self-explanatory. This is attaining fluency in the language associated with the ethnicity in question.
I listed the above in what I take to be the order of shallowest forms of engagement to the most substantive. It seems clear to me that the most substantive way of really engaging in a culture is to master its language. In fact, you won't even be able to do the other two very well without fluency in the ethnicity's language. Language allows one to understand an ethnicity's perspective and worldview. I hold that without fluency in the language, ethnic identification remains shallow.
This means that although I identify as Korean-American, my ethnic identification as Korean is pretty shallow. I can speak some Korean, but my language skill is pretty rudimentary. I eat Korean food, know what to do during Korean holidays, know how to interact with my elders, etc. But all this is merely rote behavior. I don't have the ability to read Korean at a high level, so I can't read Korean commentary on Confucius. Nor can I read the famous Korean poets and storytellers. My linguistic limitations prevent me from really taking on the Korean mindset, and thus keeps me from really identifying with Korean culture.
Friday, May 30, 2014
An Argument for Epistocracy
Here's one really simplistic way of describing government. The government makes laws, people have to follow them. Now, we can sort different types of governments by answering the question, "Who makes the laws?"
In a dictatorship, you have one person making the laws. In a pure democracy, every member of the state has a say in making the laws. Dictatorships can be quite efficient. One guy makes the laws, no one else gets a say. If the dictator wanted to make a law that Friday would be no pants day, then bam, it's done. No need to wait for anything to make the law official. Democracies, on the hand, are quite inefficient. Sometimes it takes a while to get consensus on a potential law. Lots of candidate laws never see the light of day. If there were an omniscient, morally perfect leader, then a dictatorship would be the best form of government. Unfortunately, no such individual exists. So, democracy, inefficient as it is, works out better than a dictatorship, since it allows people to decide for themselves what is best for them. Dictators can and do often act in a way that benefits themselves at the expense of the other members of the state.
Another reason to think that dictatorships are no good as a form of government is that it is possible to manipulate the dictator to make laws that may not be beneficial to everyone. Let's say you and your family were members of a dictator state. If you wanted a law that made it easy for your family to get high-paying jobs, then you'd have to go through dictator, since the dictator makes all of the laws alone. You could get the dictator to make such a law via some form of manipulation, e.g. bribery, blackmail, false information, etc. A dictator who is corruptible, ignorant, or unreasonable would be susceptible to various forms of manipulation, and could thus instate laws that are harmful to the majority of citizens.
We would thus think that democracy is better because it's harder to manipulate a bunch of people than it is to manipulate one person. All things held equal, this is true. Even though it may be relatively harder to manipulate a bunch of people, it is still certainly possible to do such manipulating with all of the mass media technology that we possess currently.
That's one reason to think that pure democracy is an inferior form of government to what I call democratic epistocracy. An epistocracy is a state run by those who meet some minimal standard of rational aptitude and being informed. John Stuart Mill championed a form of epistocracy where the number of votes you had varied positively with the degree to which you were informed and the degree to which you were capable of reasoning. This is democratic epistocracy in a nutshell. All citizens get a vote, but those in the know and are capable of thinking things through get more votes.
I think that democratic epistocracy is less susceptible to manipulation than pure democracy. Like pure democracy, you have to deal with the prospect of trying to manipulate a group of people rather than one person. Unlike pure democracy, those with the most say in what laws get enacted are less likely to manipulated via misinformation, appeals to sentiment, and bad reasoning. Of course, such individuals are not incorruptible, but at least they are not easily led astray by soundbites and such. This added resistance to manipulation is one reason to favor democratic epistocracy over pure democracy.
In a dictatorship, you have one person making the laws. In a pure democracy, every member of the state has a say in making the laws. Dictatorships can be quite efficient. One guy makes the laws, no one else gets a say. If the dictator wanted to make a law that Friday would be no pants day, then bam, it's done. No need to wait for anything to make the law official. Democracies, on the hand, are quite inefficient. Sometimes it takes a while to get consensus on a potential law. Lots of candidate laws never see the light of day. If there were an omniscient, morally perfect leader, then a dictatorship would be the best form of government. Unfortunately, no such individual exists. So, democracy, inefficient as it is, works out better than a dictatorship, since it allows people to decide for themselves what is best for them. Dictators can and do often act in a way that benefits themselves at the expense of the other members of the state.
Another reason to think that dictatorships are no good as a form of government is that it is possible to manipulate the dictator to make laws that may not be beneficial to everyone. Let's say you and your family were members of a dictator state. If you wanted a law that made it easy for your family to get high-paying jobs, then you'd have to go through dictator, since the dictator makes all of the laws alone. You could get the dictator to make such a law via some form of manipulation, e.g. bribery, blackmail, false information, etc. A dictator who is corruptible, ignorant, or unreasonable would be susceptible to various forms of manipulation, and could thus instate laws that are harmful to the majority of citizens.
We would thus think that democracy is better because it's harder to manipulate a bunch of people than it is to manipulate one person. All things held equal, this is true. Even though it may be relatively harder to manipulate a bunch of people, it is still certainly possible to do such manipulating with all of the mass media technology that we possess currently.
That's one reason to think that pure democracy is an inferior form of government to what I call democratic epistocracy. An epistocracy is a state run by those who meet some minimal standard of rational aptitude and being informed. John Stuart Mill championed a form of epistocracy where the number of votes you had varied positively with the degree to which you were informed and the degree to which you were capable of reasoning. This is democratic epistocracy in a nutshell. All citizens get a vote, but those in the know and are capable of thinking things through get more votes.
I think that democratic epistocracy is less susceptible to manipulation than pure democracy. Like pure democracy, you have to deal with the prospect of trying to manipulate a group of people rather than one person. Unlike pure democracy, those with the most say in what laws get enacted are less likely to manipulated via misinformation, appeals to sentiment, and bad reasoning. Of course, such individuals are not incorruptible, but at least they are not easily led astray by soundbites and such. This added resistance to manipulation is one reason to favor democratic epistocracy over pure democracy.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
How stories are told
How many different ways are there to tell a story? We can go more or less chronologically.
1. Oral Storytelling
I'd imagine that stories were told orally first. People would gather around and the tribe shaman or other storyteller would spin a yarn. So you have storytelling via oral transmission.
Physical communication involves more than just speaking, though. There is body language. How a storyteller gesticulates plays a major role in the conveyance and quality of storytelling. Can you tell a story with just the body language? Sure. There is pantomime. Mime artists have been around for a while. There is also dance, which I'll get to below.
One major development in oral storytelling is theater. Instead of one guy narrating the tale, you have a group of individuals all acting out a narrative by playing their roles. In addition to acting, which includes speaking and body language, we have the inclusion of artifacts in the form of sets and props. Perhaps ancient storytellers used props, but this notion goes to the next level in theater.
2. Pictures
People started drawing pictures in caves a long time ago. What was the point of painting in caves? At what point in history did people draw pictures to tell stories? Of course you have different ways of drawing pictures:
A. Drawing and painting. This is includes stuff like oil, watercolor, acrylic, graphite, ink, spray paint, etc. Basically drawing and painting is any attempt at producing some kind of image on a flat surface.
B. Sculpture. As opposed to drawing and painting, sculpture is any attempt at creating a three dimensional image. Like drawing and painting, there are lots of media here. Do people use sculptures to tell stories? Probably.
C. Photography. The most recent development would be the production of images through technology and light. Normally photography might be sorted with drawing and painting, since it is a production of an image on a two dimensional surface, but it may also be considered its own sub-category, what with the advent of three dimensional printing.
D. The Moving Image. As technology advances, we go from the ability to portray a static image to that of a moving image. Basically, there are three types of moving images.
i. Film. Film is the moving image counterpart to photography. Older film is just a series of photographs shown in rapid succession. Newer film incorporates digital technologies to capture moving images.
ii. Animation. Animation is the moving image produced by either drawing, painting, or sculpture. Like older film, older animation incorporated a series of drawn images shown in rapid succession.
iii. Puppetry. Puppetry is basically an animated version of sculpture. Three dimensional images are manipulated so as to gesture and to communicate in ways similar to body language.
Film and animation are often presented in either of the two formats: Feature film or serial. Serials include both television, as well as internet series.
The thing that binds these sub-categories is the production of a static image. Can a static image tell a story? Maybe. They do say a picture is worth a thousand words. Can those thousand words comprise a coherent narrative?
3. Music
Like pictures, music has been with us for a long time. People typically associate music with songs, and I'll get to that in a bit, but let's consider music without any accompanying lyrics. Do people use music by itself to tell a story? Probably. But, like pictures, it can be hard to see how music itself can communicate a detailed narrative.
There are lots of ways of categorizing music. A lot of those categories, however, are combinations of music and other forms, such as dance or poetry. Even when we consider music by itself, there are lots of categories. Do these categories make a difference when it comes to music as a medium for communicating narrative? I'm not sure. Does it make a difference if you're telling a story through a concerto as opposed to a symphony?
4. Written Storytelling
A major milestone in storytelling was the development of the written word. Stories can now be told without a storyteller physically present. Written storytelling comes in a variety of forms.
A. Poetry. I think epic poetry is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, written form of storytelling.
B. The novel.
C. The short story.
D. The serial
5. Hybrids
There are lots of combinations of the four media mentioned above. Theater often includes accompanying music. Film can be seen as recorded theater that isn't bound by live performance or a particular stage. Here are some more examples that I could think of.
A. Songs. Combining music with written storytelling is a natural move that goes ways back.
B. Opera. Here we have a combination of music, poetry, and theater.
C. Musical Theater. Like opera, except people don't sing all the time.
D. Illustrations. Lots of novels and other forms of written storytelling have been supplemented with images, either to enhance the written narrative, or to make its own unique contribution to the story.
E. Graphic novels. The notion of the picture making its own narrative contribution goes to the next level with graphic novels, a relatively recent form of written narrative. Comic books are a combination of written and pictorial storytelling.
F. Dance. Dance is a combination of music and oral storytelling in the particular form of body language. There are as many dances as there are unique cultures.
G. Ballet. A combination of dance and theater.
H. Video games. Video games are a form of animation where the audience participates in the narrative.
There are probably lots of other formats out there that I've neglected to mention. Although I enjoy categorizing things, there is a point to this post aside from mere taxonomy. Here's the question: How do different forms of communicating narrative compare to each other? Are some inherently better than others? Is it all apples and oranges? You'll often hear people say that the book was better than the movie. Is this true? If so, why? What are the essential elements of communicating a good story? Do some formats meet these requirements better than others?
1. Oral Storytelling
I'd imagine that stories were told orally first. People would gather around and the tribe shaman or other storyteller would spin a yarn. So you have storytelling via oral transmission.
Physical communication involves more than just speaking, though. There is body language. How a storyteller gesticulates plays a major role in the conveyance and quality of storytelling. Can you tell a story with just the body language? Sure. There is pantomime. Mime artists have been around for a while. There is also dance, which I'll get to below.
One major development in oral storytelling is theater. Instead of one guy narrating the tale, you have a group of individuals all acting out a narrative by playing their roles. In addition to acting, which includes speaking and body language, we have the inclusion of artifacts in the form of sets and props. Perhaps ancient storytellers used props, but this notion goes to the next level in theater.
2. Pictures
People started drawing pictures in caves a long time ago. What was the point of painting in caves? At what point in history did people draw pictures to tell stories? Of course you have different ways of drawing pictures:
A. Drawing and painting. This is includes stuff like oil, watercolor, acrylic, graphite, ink, spray paint, etc. Basically drawing and painting is any attempt at producing some kind of image on a flat surface.
B. Sculpture. As opposed to drawing and painting, sculpture is any attempt at creating a three dimensional image. Like drawing and painting, there are lots of media here. Do people use sculptures to tell stories? Probably.
C. Photography. The most recent development would be the production of images through technology and light. Normally photography might be sorted with drawing and painting, since it is a production of an image on a two dimensional surface, but it may also be considered its own sub-category, what with the advent of three dimensional printing.
D. The Moving Image. As technology advances, we go from the ability to portray a static image to that of a moving image. Basically, there are three types of moving images.
i. Film. Film is the moving image counterpart to photography. Older film is just a series of photographs shown in rapid succession. Newer film incorporates digital technologies to capture moving images.
ii. Animation. Animation is the moving image produced by either drawing, painting, or sculpture. Like older film, older animation incorporated a series of drawn images shown in rapid succession.
iii. Puppetry. Puppetry is basically an animated version of sculpture. Three dimensional images are manipulated so as to gesture and to communicate in ways similar to body language.
Film and animation are often presented in either of the two formats: Feature film or serial. Serials include both television, as well as internet series.
The thing that binds these sub-categories is the production of a static image. Can a static image tell a story? Maybe. They do say a picture is worth a thousand words. Can those thousand words comprise a coherent narrative?
3. Music
Like pictures, music has been with us for a long time. People typically associate music with songs, and I'll get to that in a bit, but let's consider music without any accompanying lyrics. Do people use music by itself to tell a story? Probably. But, like pictures, it can be hard to see how music itself can communicate a detailed narrative.
There are lots of ways of categorizing music. A lot of those categories, however, are combinations of music and other forms, such as dance or poetry. Even when we consider music by itself, there are lots of categories. Do these categories make a difference when it comes to music as a medium for communicating narrative? I'm not sure. Does it make a difference if you're telling a story through a concerto as opposed to a symphony?
4. Written Storytelling
A major milestone in storytelling was the development of the written word. Stories can now be told without a storyteller physically present. Written storytelling comes in a variety of forms.
A. Poetry. I think epic poetry is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, written form of storytelling.
B. The novel.
C. The short story.
D. The serial
5. Hybrids
There are lots of combinations of the four media mentioned above. Theater often includes accompanying music. Film can be seen as recorded theater that isn't bound by live performance or a particular stage. Here are some more examples that I could think of.
A. Songs. Combining music with written storytelling is a natural move that goes ways back.
B. Opera. Here we have a combination of music, poetry, and theater.
C. Musical Theater. Like opera, except people don't sing all the time.
D. Illustrations. Lots of novels and other forms of written storytelling have been supplemented with images, either to enhance the written narrative, or to make its own unique contribution to the story.
E. Graphic novels. The notion of the picture making its own narrative contribution goes to the next level with graphic novels, a relatively recent form of written narrative. Comic books are a combination of written and pictorial storytelling.
F. Dance. Dance is a combination of music and oral storytelling in the particular form of body language. There are as many dances as there are unique cultures.
G. Ballet. A combination of dance and theater.
H. Video games. Video games are a form of animation where the audience participates in the narrative.
There are probably lots of other formats out there that I've neglected to mention. Although I enjoy categorizing things, there is a point to this post aside from mere taxonomy. Here's the question: How do different forms of communicating narrative compare to each other? Are some inherently better than others? Is it all apples and oranges? You'll often hear people say that the book was better than the movie. Is this true? If so, why? What are the essential elements of communicating a good story? Do some formats meet these requirements better than others?
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Communication, Technology, and Culture
Let's start with communication itself. There are two parts to communication: the content of what is being communicated, and the medium through which communication occurs. Technology obviously has a direct effect on communication media. This is what I'll focus on here. I'll also speculate on the relationship between technology and communicated content. Finally, I'll also wonder aloud about the relationship between changes in communication brought about by technology and culture.
Assuming there is no such thing as telepathy, communication is always mediated by the five physical senses. Although it is certainly possible to communicate to some extent via taste, smell, and touch, communication is most commonly received via sight and hearing. It is through sight and hearing that we communicate propositions, i.e. pieces of information that report facts and states of affairs. Taste, touch, and smell, aren't so efficient at receiving these kinds of information, with the exception of the use of braille. The aforementioned senses are more of the evocative variety. They bring to mind certain kinds of experiences, but these experiences tend to be highly subjective. Communication received via sight and hearing in the form of written and spoken language allow for some intersubjectivity between the participants of communication.
So, I'll be focusing on communication via language. As mentioned above, language is employed either in either written or spoken form. There are ways in which technology can affect the way in which language is transmitted.
Oral Language
Spoken language is constrained by the ability of the audience to hear the message. Without technology, the speaker's audience is limited to those within earshot. Technology can alleviate this constraint in a few ways. First, it can amplify the volume of the spoken message so that the message is intelligible at further distances. Examples include megaphones and public address systems. Second, it can convert a spoken message to something else, transmit it, and reconvert it back to a spoken message available to any audience anywhere who possesses to the means to reconvert that message. Examples include, radio, television, telephones, internet, etc. With the advent of recording, a spoken message can reach anyone potentially anywhere at any time.
One effect that technology has on spoken language is that it separates the message from the physical interaction that usually comes with it. Typically, a spoken message is given with the speaker and audience physically present. With technology, neither party is required to by physically present when the message is given. How does this affect culture?
Written Language
Of course, the fact that a message can reach an audience that is separated from the speaker by time and place has already been established by written language. The advent of written language ushered in major changes in culture. Messages can now be preserved across time and distributed across distant geographic locations. How did this affect culture?
With respect to the written word, technology has different effect than it does with the spoken word. Primitive ways of creating the written word were slow, costly, and difficult to distribute. Think of messages engraved into stone. As technology advances, these effects were ameliorated. Paper made messages easier to distribute. The printing press significantly lowered the cost of distribution. Typewriters sped up the process of creating written messages. How has this affected culture? Are there significant ways in which culture differs because written messages can be created and distributed quickly and cheaply?
Assuming there is no such thing as telepathy, communication is always mediated by the five physical senses. Although it is certainly possible to communicate to some extent via taste, smell, and touch, communication is most commonly received via sight and hearing. It is through sight and hearing that we communicate propositions, i.e. pieces of information that report facts and states of affairs. Taste, touch, and smell, aren't so efficient at receiving these kinds of information, with the exception of the use of braille. The aforementioned senses are more of the evocative variety. They bring to mind certain kinds of experiences, but these experiences tend to be highly subjective. Communication received via sight and hearing in the form of written and spoken language allow for some intersubjectivity between the participants of communication.
So, I'll be focusing on communication via language. As mentioned above, language is employed either in either written or spoken form. There are ways in which technology can affect the way in which language is transmitted.
Oral Language
Spoken language is constrained by the ability of the audience to hear the message. Without technology, the speaker's audience is limited to those within earshot. Technology can alleviate this constraint in a few ways. First, it can amplify the volume of the spoken message so that the message is intelligible at further distances. Examples include megaphones and public address systems. Second, it can convert a spoken message to something else, transmit it, and reconvert it back to a spoken message available to any audience anywhere who possesses to the means to reconvert that message. Examples include, radio, television, telephones, internet, etc. With the advent of recording, a spoken message can reach anyone potentially anywhere at any time.
One effect that technology has on spoken language is that it separates the message from the physical interaction that usually comes with it. Typically, a spoken message is given with the speaker and audience physically present. With technology, neither party is required to by physically present when the message is given. How does this affect culture?
Written Language
Of course, the fact that a message can reach an audience that is separated from the speaker by time and place has already been established by written language. The advent of written language ushered in major changes in culture. Messages can now be preserved across time and distributed across distant geographic locations. How did this affect culture?
With respect to the written word, technology has different effect than it does with the spoken word. Primitive ways of creating the written word were slow, costly, and difficult to distribute. Think of messages engraved into stone. As technology advances, these effects were ameliorated. Paper made messages easier to distribute. The printing press significantly lowered the cost of distribution. Typewriters sped up the process of creating written messages. How has this affected culture? Are there significant ways in which culture differs because written messages can be created and distributed quickly and cheaply?
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The most convincing argument for the existence of God
This is a follow up to my previous post regarding an argument against the existence of a Christian God. It should be obvious that by "convincing," I mean convincing to me. Anyways, here's the argument.
1. Human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe.
2. If human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe, then their origins cannot be completely explained by appeals to the physical universe.
3. Therefore, the origins of human beings cannot be completely explained by appeals to the physical universe.
Of course, this argument does not show that a Christian God exists. It doesn't even conclude that any kind of God exists. It does, however, present a first step towards establishing that God exists. At the very least, it shows that there is something other than the physical universe out there.
I would imagine that most people would reject the first premise of the argument. Here's another argument given in support of the first premise.
1. Human beings experience transcendental emotions.
2. The fact that human beings experience transcendental emotions is best explained by the notion that human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe.
3. Therefore, it is likely that human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe.
Transcendental emotions are emotions whose scope is greater than regular social contexts. We experience hope, despair, gratitude, and anxiety at a mundane level. But we also experience these emotions at a far greater level. When someone feels thankful to be alive, who are they thanking? When someone despairs at possibility of life's meaninglessness, where is the emotion directed towards? These sorts of emotions are data that require explanation. Reductive accounts appealing to evolutionary mechanisms seem unsatisfying to me. So, absent other candidates, the best explanation seems to be that sorts of emotions come from a part of human beings that isn't formed by physical mechanisms.
1. Human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe.
2. If human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe, then their origins cannot be completely explained by appeals to the physical universe.
3. Therefore, the origins of human beings cannot be completely explained by appeals to the physical universe.
Of course, this argument does not show that a Christian God exists. It doesn't even conclude that any kind of God exists. It does, however, present a first step towards establishing that God exists. At the very least, it shows that there is something other than the physical universe out there.
I would imagine that most people would reject the first premise of the argument. Here's another argument given in support of the first premise.
1. Human beings experience transcendental emotions.
2. The fact that human beings experience transcendental emotions is best explained by the notion that human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe.
3. Therefore, it is likely that human beings are fundamentally different from all observed entities in the physical universe.
Transcendental emotions are emotions whose scope is greater than regular social contexts. We experience hope, despair, gratitude, and anxiety at a mundane level. But we also experience these emotions at a far greater level. When someone feels thankful to be alive, who are they thanking? When someone despairs at possibility of life's meaninglessness, where is the emotion directed towards? These sorts of emotions are data that require explanation. Reductive accounts appealing to evolutionary mechanisms seem unsatisfying to me. So, absent other candidates, the best explanation seems to be that sorts of emotions come from a part of human beings that isn't formed by physical mechanisms.