Read it all the way through if you can, if your mental acuity has not been dulled by use of the Internet. (Which unfortunately seems to be the case for me, as I've alluded to before. I do think that use of the Internet -- coupled with a high-speed connection, promotes a form of attention deficit. One does have an incentive to pay for a high-speed connection, if just for faster page loads -- with all of the multimedia content that is available through sites like youtube and veoh, as well as content embedded on blogs and websites, a fast connection is needed. But that in turn feeds the attention deficit disorder. I do think that both browsing websites and blogging have an negative impact on reading and writing skills, as well as thinking, leading to mental diarrhea.)
At any rate, Mr. Carr makes a reference to Plato:
In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” And because they would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” they would “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.” They would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” Socrates wasn’t wrong—the new technology did often have the effects he feared—but he was shortsighted. He couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).How would Mr. Carr distinguish knowledge from opinion? Would he be able to offer definitions for either?
Unfortunately, Mr. Carr, despite his recognition of the problems that the Internet may cause for intelligence, is too optimistic with respect to benefits that have not yet been made manifest yet. He also reveals his acceptance of the modern understanding of reason and knowledge, and the updated version of the encyclopedic project. If he had a more "traditional" (i.e. realist) understanding of knowledge, and the dependence of knowledge on the senses and phantasms, he would see that the new technology cannot do anything that the written word could not already do on its own in referring to reality. What is needed for growth in knowledge and wisdom is both sensation (a direct perception of reality, and not one mediated by audiovisual media) and all of that is needed for good reasoning, including a good teacher, logic, and grammar. The value of good grammatical, rhetorical, and logical skills for clear thinking cannot be underestimated, and nothing the Internet does in terms of rewiring the brain can replace these basic tools of the human intellect [or should we say 'soul'?] The Internet, and its use of audiovisual media, graphics, and other things, both re-presents and distorts reality--its re-presentation of reality necessarily involves distortion? Is this statement stronger or is it different from Marshall McLuhan's "The medium is the message"?
The Official Site of Marshall McLuhan
Marshall McLuhan: "The Medium is the Message"
What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?
Also from the current issue of The Atlantic:
American Murder Mystery
Why is crime rising in so many American cities? The answer implicates one of the most celebrated antipoverty programs of recent decades. by Hanna Rosin
I Choose My Choice!
The fruits of the feminist revolution? Sisterhood, empowerment, and eight hours a day in a cubicle
by Sandra Tsing Loh
Something for The Western Confucian:
Distracting Miss Daisy
Why stop signs and speed limits endanger Americans
by John Staddon
No comments:
Post a Comment