Module 04 Human Flourishing in terms of Science and Technology PDF

Preview

Summary

Module 04 - Human Flourishing in terms of Science and TechnologyOverview:Lesson 1: Technology as a way of RevealingLesson 2: Human FlourishingLesson 3: The Good LifeTechnology has always been defined as a means to an end and being a human activity.It has long filled the word. Everyday routines are m...

Description

Module 04 - Human Flourishing in terms of Science and Technology

Overview: Lesson 1: Technology as a way of Revealing Lesson 2: Human Flourishing Lesson 3: The Good Life

Technology has always been defined as a means to an end and being a human activity. It has long filled the word. Everyday routines are marked with technological advances that reflect what a society is good or known for. Technology has well advanced since the middle of the 20th century, and our lives has never been better. It is not unexpected for technology to involve question of knowledge which lead to its formation as one of the branches of philosophy. This also led to the furtherance of technology based on how it is viewed and understood. Aristotle, along with other philosophers believed that knowledge of the world begins by looking and examining that which exists. To understand the human person flourishing in terms of science and technology, it is good to first examine technology in its essence

Objectives:

After successful completion of this module, you should be able to: 1. Analyze the human condition in order to deeply reflect and express philosophical ramifications that are meaningful to the students as part of the society 2. Critique human flourishing vis-à-vis the progress of science and technology so that the student can define for themselves the meaning of the good life 3. Examine shared concerns that make up with innovative, creative solutions to contemporary issues guided by ethical standards

HUMAN FLOURISHING IN TERMS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

For us to be able to determine and critic how has human flourished in terms of Science and technology, let us first define what flourishing is. FLOURISHING - a state where people experience positive emotion, positive psychological Functioning and positive social functioning, most of the time living within an optimal range of human functioning Edward W. Younkins in his article Aristotle, Human Flourishing and the Limited State (2003) defined Human flourishing (also known as personal flourishing) as something that involves the rational use of one's individual human potentialities, including talents, abilities, and virtues in the pursuit of his freely and rationally chosen values and goals. Flourishing is the highest good of human endeavors and that toward which all actions aim. It is success as a human being. The best life is one of excellent human activity.

To be able to fully understand how humans has flourished in terms of Science and Technology let us identify some VIEWS ON TECHNOLOGY. It has been said they there are many views or ways as to how technology is understood. These philosophies contributed on how technology is understood and utilized by the society. 1. Aristolelianism This views technology as basically a means to an end. To Aristotle, technology is the organizing of techniques in order to meet the demand that is being posed by humans. This may seem that technology is primarily concerned with the product. Technology will be judged as either good or bad based on the value given to the product based on its use and effect to the society.

2. Technological pessimism This view is extremely supported by French philosopher Jacques Ellul (1912-1994). Technological Pessimism holds that technology is progressive and beneficial in many ways, it is also doubtful in many ways. It is said that technology is a means to and end but this views, technology has become a way of life. Technique has become a framework which human cannot escape. It has introduced ways on how to make things easy. Ellul's pessimistic arguments are: (1) Technological progress has a price; (2) Technological progress creates more problems;

(3) Technological progress creates damaging effects; and (4) technological progress creates unpredictable devastating effects 3. Technological optimism This view is strongly supported by technologist and engineers and also by ordinary people who believe that technology can alleviate all the difficulties and provide solutions for problems that may come. It holds that even though technological problems may arise, technology will still be the solutions to it. The extreme version of this philosophy is technocratism which holds technology as the supreme authority on everything. 4. Existentialism The main concern of this view is the existence or the mode of being of someone or something which is governed by the norm of authenticity. This view basically investigates the meaning of existence or being and is always faced with the selection must make with which the existence will commit himself to. Martin Heidegger, German philosopher, one of the most known supporters of this philosophy. He did not stop defining what technology is but has dealt with its essence. To Heidegger, the real essence of technology lies in enframing, the gathering of the setting upon which challenges man to bring the unconcealed to unconcealment and this is a continuous revealing. Combining these thoughts, we can now discuss the Human Person as both the bearer and the beneficiary of Science and Technology and how human flourishes and finds meaning in the world that he/she builds.

Lesson 1: TECHNOLOGY AS A WAY OF REVEALING

Humans may unconsciously acquire. Consume or destroy what the world has to offer. And Science and technology as part of human life needs reflective and meditative thinking. Science and technology must be examined for their greater impact on humanity as a whole.

A. Martin Heidegger on science and technology Martin Heidegger (1889-1996), a well-known German philosopher, examined the two usual definitions of technology; a. means to an end and b. a human activity, because he believed that this is kind of confusing and there are questions to it that we easily overlook. These two definitions cannot be separated from each other. He called it

the instrumental and anthropological definition of technology or simply means by which the human ends are realized. To Heidegger, this may not be a false definition but it is a misleading one because this limits our thinking. B. The instrumental definition of technology According to Heidegger, the instrumental definition of technology encourages us to view technology from different periods of time as not having fundamental differences. But he claimed that this does not show the true essence of technology. He explained that while technology is geared towards meeting human needs, still there is a difference between older handicraft technologies with modern technology. As it is, "a saw mill on a secluded valley of the Black Forest is a primitive means compared with the hydroelectric plant on the Rhine River " (Heidegger,1977,p.I). Heidegger also argued that " technology is by no means technological" and should not be seen as merely neutral. The problem begins when humans see it only as a means to an end and disregard the fact that there is a good technology and a bad technology. Another problem Heidegger saw in the instrumental definition of technology is that it only invites man to a continual desire to master it which unconsciously may be making technology go out of hand. Heidegger said, "Everything depends on our manipulating technology in the proper manner as a means. We will, as we say, 'get' technology 'spiritually in hand'. We will master it. The will to mastery becomes the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control." (Heidegger, 1977,p.I) with this, he argued that the problem does not fall on making technology better but on how man sets upon technology, his thoughts that makes him blind to the real essence of technology. For Heidegger, this correct definition of technology is insufficient as it does not bring out its real essence. He said, "In order that we may arrive at this, or at least come close to it, we must seek the true by way of the correct. We must ask: what is the instrumental itself? Within what do such things as means and end belong? (1977,p.2) In answering these question, Heidegger arrived at a discussion of causality which to him in reality initially involves four ways that leads for something to exist or to be "caused’. Heidegger further studied Aristotle's Four causes and illustrated it using a silver chalice which he said owes its make up from the four causes. 1. Causa Materialis or the material cause - The material by which the silver chalice was made of: silver. 2. Causa Formalis or the formal cause - The form of the shape that gave the silver chalice its image. 3. Causa Finalis or the final cause - The purpose or the primary use by which the silver chalice was made for: to be used during the Holy Communion as a vessel for the wine that represent the blood of Christ. 4. Causa Efficiens or the efficient Cause - The agent that has caused for the silver chalice to come about: the silversmith.

The four causes are all deemed responsible for the bringing forth of the silver chalice. This bringing forth of something is termed as poiesis and this is characterized by an external force. It is bringing something concealed to unconcealment which then makes technology as not only means to an end but also a mode of revealing. The silver chalice was bought forth by the silver, by its form, for its purpose, by the silversmith. External factors have caused for the silver chalice to be brought forth. On the other hand, something that came about without any external forced, like a flower blooming in the field or a tree bearing its fruit is termed physics. The flower blossomed and the tree bore fruit even without external help.

C. Heidegger’s technology as way of revealing Heidegger believed that the genuine substance or the real essence of technology is found in enframing. This is the continuous bringing forth into unconcealment that which is concealed. This is a non-stop revealing. Heidegger saw technology as a way of revealing and continues to demand for something to be bought out into the open. This bringing forth into the open is a two-way relationship: the concealed is calling out for someone to set upon it and bring it to unconcealment and the one who receives the call sets upon and acts upon to unconceal the concealed To further illustrate this, he gave some examples through contrasting ancient and modern technology. First he talked about the ancient windmill which only relies on the wind blowing and does not store energy which can be for immediate use and can also be stored up for future use. Second, was about the peasant planting seeds who only waits for the bringing forth of the planted seed because there is no challenge set upon soil. Modern technology of cultivation on the other hand, challenged the field that has caused for agriculture to be revolutionized. Now, food is not only produced for immediate use but can be stored as well for future use and could cater more population. Third, is about the wooden bridge is built to join river for banks for hundreds of years without challenges being set upon the river. While on the other hand, the hydroelectric plant that was set on Rhine River dammed the river into the hydroelectric plant so that electrical energy can be stored and distributed Because of this continuous revealing, Heidegger also pointed out the danger that comes with technology. The call to unconceal that which is concealed is also causing something to be concealed even more. And as one tries to understand something, there is the tendency to be closed to the counterpart of which is being opened to him. There is also tendency for man to misunderstand the thing that is being unconcealed before him. Here, Heidegger calls for man to be more discerning and considerate of the things that is being unconcealed before him and those that have relationship with that thing being unconcealed

D. The mode of revealing in modern technology Heidegger explained that technology as a mode of revealing does not stop and continues to be seen in modern technology but not in the bringing-forth sense. This is a nonstop revealing. Modern technology is revealed by challenging nature, instead of bringing forth, it is setting upon challenges or demands on nature in order to: a. Unlock and expose. It carries the idea that nature will not reveal itself unless challenge is set upon it. This is true with the hydroelectric plant set upon the Rhine River which unlocked the electricity concealed in it. b. Stock piles for future use. As technology is a means to an end, it aims to meet future demands, the electricity produced by the hydroelectric plant set upon the Rhine River is being stored for future use in the community. Modern technology are now able to get more from nature by challenging it. As Heidegger (1997) said," Such challenging happens in that energy concealed in nature in unblocked is transformed, what is transformed is stored up, what is stored up is distributed, and what is distributed is switched about ever a new"

E. The danger of the nonstop revealing As said earlier, the mode of revealing does not stop in modern technology. It continually calls man to respond to what is presented to him or to the demand for a better and efficient means to an end. With this comes the continuous challenging forth for the unconcealed to be unconcealed even more. Here lies the danger that Heidegger talked about. Revealing opens up a relationship between man and the word but an opening up of something means a closing down of something which means as something is revealed, another is concealed. An example given by Heidegger on this "the rise of a cause-effect understanding of reality closes "off an understanding of God as something mysterious and holy: God is reduced to 'the god of the philosophers"(Cerbone,2008). Another danger is when man falls into a misinterpretation of that which is presented to him. That is when he sees himself in the object before him rather than seeing the object itself. There is also the tendency for man to be fully engrossed with the enframing that he fails to weigh the results and consequences of his setting upon an object which maybe destructive not only to himself but even to the surroundings and other people. This happens when he starts to believe that everything in the human condition can be answered by technology and that even man's happiness is dependent on the continuous modernization of technology.

F. The society in the face of science and technology When one looks around him now, he will see that man tends to find his happiness in the works of modern technology. Smartphones, tablets, laptops that come in different shapes and sizes with distinct features seem to be the measure of man's value. me There seems to be no contentment as every time a new product is released, man finds another need that can only be answered by a new product. These new products also tend to replace man in the society as the demand for manual labor is becoming less and less because of the availability of machineries. The human condition is not of without hope. Heidegger argued that this can be prevented if man will not allow himself to be overwhelmed with the enframing that he was set upon, but he pause for a while and reflect on the value of what is presented before him. A balance has to be struck between technology being instrumental and anthropological. One has to understand that technology does not only concern the means but also the end as one proverb goes, "The end does not justify the means" For Heidegger, the solution for this is that man would not be controlling and manipulative of what he was set upon but to also allow nature to reveal itself to him. With this, according to Heidegger, man will have free relationship with technology.

Suggested site to view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbuTSzXKgIA

Lesson 2: HUMAN FLOURISHING

Eudaimonism is a moral philosophy that defines right action as that which leads to the "well-being" of the individual, thus holding "well-being" as having essential value. It makes up part of the system of Virtue Ethics propounded by the ancient Greek philosophers, in which a lifetime of practicing the virtues ("arête") in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of practical wisdom ("phronesis") to resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise, will allow the individual to flourish and live the good life ("eudaimonia"). The term "eudaimonia" is a classical Greek word, commonly translated as "happiness", but perhaps better described as "well-being" or "human flourishing" or "good life". More literally it means "having a good guardian spirit". Eudaimonia as the ultimate goal is an objective, not a subjective, state, and it characterizes the well-lived life, irrespective of the emotional state of the person experiencing it. In more general terms, Eudaimonism can be thought of as any theory that puts personal happiness and the complete life of the individual at the center of ethical concern. It can therefore be associated with ethical Individualism and Egoism

History of Eudaimonism The concept came to fruition in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics", which dates from the 4th Century B.C., although the earlier thinkers Democritus, Socrates and Plato described a very similar idea. Socrates, as represented in Plato's early dialogues, held that virtue is a sort of knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good, or eudaimonia, which is what all human desires and actions aim to achieve. Plato noted that even "evil" people feel guilt at doing something which is clearly wrong, and, even when there is no fear of punishment, doing what is wrong simply makes people miserable. He further refined the idea of eudaimonia, claiming that the rational part of the soul or mind must govern the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order to lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia, the principal constituent of which is virtue. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is constituted, not by honor, wealth or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life, what might be described today as productive self-actualization. This rational activity, Aristotle judged, should manifest as honesty, pride, friendliness, wittiness, rationality in judgment; mutually beneficial friendships and scientific knowledge.

Epicurus (and subsequent Hedonists) agreed with Aristotle that happiness, or eudaimonia, is the highest good, but he identified this with pleasure, on the grounds that pleasure is the only thing that people value for its own sake, and that its presence or absence is something which is immediately apparent to everyone. He also noted that it may be necessary to forgo short-term pleasure if that will ultimately lead to greater pleasure in the long-term. The Stoics also believed to some extent that eudaimonia was the highest good, although for them virtue and well-being consist of living according to Nature and, even if perfect virtue is actually unachievable, the least we can do to is to act "befittingly", in the hope of approaching or approximating eudaimonia. St. Augustine of Hippo later adopted the concept as "beatitudo", and St. Thomas Aquinas worked it out into a Christian ethical scheme, where eudaimonia is found ultimately in a direct perception of God, or complete blessedness. Immanuel Kant was an important opponent of Eudaimonism. He rejected the view that happiness is the highest good, and insisted that happiness can be an ingredient of the highest good, but only if it is deserved. Still later, Existentialism rejected Eudaimonism on the grounds that happiness is just a bourgeois fantasy.

Recommended sites for viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6UQLiHB0k0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmmR1v0IJck

Lesson 3: THE GOOD LIFE

There is the anecdote between a teacher and a child. Teacher: What do you want to be when you grow up? Child: I want to be happy. Teacher: Perhaps you didn’t understand the question. Child: Perhaps you do not understand life.”

Based on this anecdote, both the teacher and the child are referring to different “ultimate goal” in life. For the teacher, on his pers...