Progress into the Technological World

I sat watching Digital Nation very interested and slightly appalled. I was genuinely interested in the advances in technology and the creative, experimental uses of technology. Unlike the rest of my class, I was not appalled at the effects technology and online games have on human interactions. The producers of Digital Nation had a purpose: to produce an extreme view that human interactions are being lost all together as a result of the digital age. I was appalled at the one-sided perspective of this documentary and the dehumanizing of the people who do play video games regularly. Most people who do play online video games are not hard core gamers, and even those who are play because they enjoy the escapism. This want or need for an escapism is not a new thing! Isn't reading a form of escapism? Doesn't everyone thoroughly enjoy vicariously living through the characters in a book? Reading for pleasure is the same thing as playing video games except reading does not involve human interactions at all. I don't understand why this documentary placed such a heavy emphasis on the loss of human interactions via online video games when this modern form of escapism actually involves human interaction while reading involves none.

Personally, I have played and enjoyed video games such as Oblivion and Guild Wars. Oblivion is a single player game that involves creating a character and essentially living in any manner which you choose. This single player game is equivalent to reading because it does not involve human interactions, however, it does foster conversations just as reading does. People connect by the fact that they can discuss or share opinions on a specific book; in the same way, people connect by discussing their opinions on a specific game. While reading a book requires imagination, the reader simply follows the story of the writer. In playing Oblivion, however, one uses imagination, creativity, and strategy to create an entirely new character, a life path, and solutions to quests; the choice is yours! Now, as for Guild Wars, human connectivity is increased because it involves the interaction of digital characters. You create a character and advance through the game by participating in quests. Often you must seek help from other players to complete quests and therefore a form of reciprocity is simulated in the the gaming world and eventually guilds are created. Guilds are groups formed in the game of players with similar interests that form for mutual aid. This digital interaction is a manner of human interaction and in my opinion it is neither a good or bad thing. Why are people afraid of a new form of interaction? No one is forcing you to communicate or interact through the digital world, so if there is a personal problem for you rebel against it. Just say no to those diabolical video games!

Ultimately, technology is advancing and the only logical thing to do is to take advantage of what it can offer us. Another thing people scoffed at was having conferences on second life. Why should people fly across the globe to meet for a simple conference? It is less costly and more efficient to use second life, which simulates human interactions.

Technology forge ahead! We should be wary of all the consequences involved in advancing technology and the digital age but we should not delay progress because, after all, it is progress. Also, no one should blindly buy into the fear Digital Nation wants to spread about the digital age because there is an entirely other viewpoint that was sorely lacking in this documentary.

God is Dead

To Friedrich Nietzsche there are three wills and stages of being: the primal will, child's will, and will to power. These three wills embody Nietzsche's philosophy on the individual and on society.

The primal will is the instinctive need to survive which sets the basis of the consciousness. The individual must do all that is required to survive and satisfy his or her desires, passions, and needs. Human beings are subject to their unconscious, involuntary, and basic Dionysian instincts. This primal will is ultimately the will to live.
Another aspect of the primal will is the acceptance of life that contains a unity of creation and destruction, joy and sorrow, for that is a truth in existence. With the birth of a child comes the inevitable truth that that child must die, but Nietzsche does not dwell on this truth. Instead, he believes that after an individual has come to this realization of death and acceptance of the primal will then that individual can live every moment in the present and satisfy the most basic necessity of existence.

The child's will is an individual's self-actualization; it is the ability to create an internal moral code. With the child's will, an individual has the ability to doubt, contemplate, accept or reject something; essentially, they have the ability and power to chose.
Nietzsche was a proponent of people creating and living by their own ethics instead of blinding following moral codes that have been impressed upon them. By creating one's own internal morals, an individual separates him or herself from the masses and becomes elevated to an Ubermench (superhuman) through the will to power.

The will to power is the nature of humans to achieve, compete, and gain all power in all situations in order to elevate oneself from all others. Humans that have embraced their Dionysian instincts and internalized their own set of values then accepts the will to power. Nietzsche believes this acceptance of the will to power is the means to success; with this acceptance comes the ability to elevate oneself to the Ubermench, an exceptional individual.

Nietzsche used his interpretation of these three wills of the individual to describe and criticize society. "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him..." Nietzsche criticized Christian society for hypocritically using the name of God to gain power and to continue social stratification. These "Christians" are only Christian in name and not in action. Those in power use the name of God to control the masses and thus have "killed" God because they have spoiled His name. The elites, willing to power, perpetuate a never ending hierarchy with God as their justification.

Sense of Surroundings

Descartes, a rationalist, and Hume, an empiricist, had a natural tendency to disagree, to say the least.
Descartes based his method of doubt and fundamental truths of existence upon rationalist logic; through the use of mathematics and deductive reasoning, Descartes came to doubt sense perception, reality, and the seemingly self-evident. He determined the one foundation upon all knowledge is cogito ergo sum, "I think, therefore I am."
On the other hand, Hume believed rational thought came after sensing the surrounding environment; therefore, logic must be based on impressions of one's sense perception, or that if one cannot experience knowledge or concepts then he/she cannot have them. Hume, as an empiricist, held believed that humans have no knowledge, only beliefs which are felt to be true. Empiricists use sensory observations and experimentation to draw conclusions.
Although Descartes' method of doubt is rational, his inability to recognize sensory impressions before deductive functions is not. Hume states that perception of the environment must come before rational functions: this is true because what is pure reason without the senses influences? Humans will never know because no human has ever or can ever experience and communicate logic without the influence and impressions of the senses. In addition, what if it is true that there is a demon who deceives all that we believe? The knowledge or concept of a deceiving demon is beyond the realm in which we can perceive and thus this knowledge is something which we cannot be concerned with. All of what we believe find their basis in what we can perceive because that is the only thing from which belief can stem. For example, Descartes' method of doubt stemmed from his belief that the senses deceive us; thus, his entire basis for a fundamental truth was based in how he perceived his senses.

Problem of Change

The problem of change was argued by the ancient Greek Philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus believed that the fundamental character of reality is change, that nothing could remain the same; he said, "One cannot step twice into the same river." On the other hand, Parmenides believed that permanence is the fundamental character of reality, change is an illusion perceived by the sense, and truth is unchanging and know to reason.

Parmenides' belief that permanence is the fundamental character of reality is flawed; nothing can ultimately remain the same. The universe changed from several particles jumbling about to the universe we know today with solar systems and planets and life. Darwin's theory of evolution contradicts his belief stating that species have mutated throughout the ages to adapt to their environments, their changing environments. The world goes through periods of cold and hot; thus, the ice ages and global warming. Mutations in species develop an organism to become more adapt to living in certain environments. In addition to evolution, we as humans undergo processes of development every day. Most of the cells in your body, in fact, are typically around 7 to 10 years old even if you're middle aged; therefore, every 10 years, your body is actually almost brand new. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/02cell.html?pagewanted=all) Changed has occurred throughout this human developmental process.

Paranoia

I was walking down a dark street, blinded by the utter blackness surrounding every inch of me and my sight. I felt my adrenaline pumping through my veins, expedited by my racing heart; the panic consumed by being. Overwhelmed, I began to see movements in the darkness, feel vibrations around me, and hear twigs snapping. The remnants of a logical human being had disappeared, I was a slave to this paranoia.
Paranoia is overwhelming and irrational fear of the unknown. We discussed what differentiated Hume and Descartes in their thoughts of paranoia. Personally, I connect with Hume, who argues that humans are slaves to the passions and will react when necessary in order to survive. Descartes believed doubt was the only possible way of reaching reality; rational thought was the only way to know. In the case of paranoia, Hume would have expected a human to accept the fear and react to it, while Descartes would have expected a human to doubt the fear and thus come to a rational conclusion about it.
I agree with Hume; when put into a situation of intense, perhaps irrational, fear the most sensible thing to do is put yourself into a situation where that fear no longer exists; thus, even if there is no basis for the fear, you feel safe and create your own safety. Perhaps though some people can create their own safety within their mind by rationalizing that there was never a basis for the fear; therefore, the fear should not exist.

Pure Chance

Teleology is defined as "the philosophical doctrine that final cause, design, and purpose exist in nature." (Dictionary.com) This definition unfortunately did not clarify the meaning of teleological thinking for me. Luckily, understanding finally struck me when Jordan said that teleological thinking is when "looking back, it is the only way it could have happened." Darwin believed that "evolution had a direction" (426), a teleological thought: humans have developed over the course of the universe to what we are today because that was the only way we could have developed, through the millions of mutations, survivals, and continued evolution.
I had a thought, that teleological thought is actually a limited way of viewing one's existence because it disregards all the possible forms humans could have taken. Imagine the sheer impossibility of our exact existence. In order for you to become you, each one of your ancestors had to meet with others generation after generation (several of these meetings were even the most random occurrence, such as your parents being at the same restaurant at the same time entirely per chance). You would, in fact, not exist had it not been for all of these chance meetings to occur the way they did. This is how the human race evolved; just think of all the chance mutations that occurred to even bring about the human race; the possibilities are endless for what we could have turned into.
Teleological thought limits the wonder one can gain from their existence because it accepts that their existence had to come about in the way that it did; I believe this to be an incorrect theory. There are so many possibilities for how we could have evolved, it is only pure chance we are who we are today.

Mental Captivity

“…A way out of the mental captivity that we have lived in for much too long.” (388) Although Alberto is referring to the captivity he and Sophie have been placed in by Knag, relevance of this quote extends far beyond the literal sense. Everyone is, in a sense, in some sort of mental captivity that prohibits a holistic and unbiased view of the world. People are indoctrinated at birth into a certain culture and environment that influences one’s thoughts about issues, many of which people cannot substantiate by logical thought processes. For example, if I ask a teenager whether they consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat, I can assure you that most, if not all, will respond with the same identification as their parents have chosen. Imposed values, such as political and religious values, thus deter an individual from thinking on their own, creating their own path. Philosophy is the key to this mental captivity; this is highlighted in Sophie’s World.

            Sophie, with Alberto’s help, immediately finds the wonder with life, the magic of philosophy, and thinks: “How tragic that most people had to get ill before they understood what a gift it was to be alive. Or else they had to find a mysterious letter in the mailbox!” (5) Most people take being alive for granted, never fully appreciating what a remarkable event their very existence is in terms of the universe and time throughout the ages. By this “mysterious letter” Sophie is given the gift of wonder and philosophical thought. Along the timeline of an individual’s life there is an unrecognizable moment when the childlike awe with surroundings shifts to acceptance and even weariness of similar perhaps boring sights and events. “To children, the world and everything in it is new, something that gives rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults. Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.” (18) This acceptance of the world is a mental captivity that adults bear without the slightest notice or care because in place of awe, they are required to focus on practical needs. Blind acceptance of the world inhibits learning and discovery; this confinement of the mind must be broken in order to fully appreciate life.

            With this blind acceptance of the surrounding world, people become accustomed to things we are able to perceive and the concept that this world is the true reality. With this belief comes blissful ignorance by which people enable themselves to “work themselves ever deeper into the fur…becom[ing] so comfortable they never risk crawling back up the fragile hairs again.” (18) Free will and reality are comforts people indulge in in order to ignore and avoid the bigger questions and possibly difficult truths; this chosen ignorance is a mental captivity that imprisons the mind from transcending worldly perceptions and beliefs. “Does our world consist of real things—or are we encircled by the mind?” (284) Sophie’s question embodies the questioning of reality so many people avoid asking.