Why has nobody commented on this video. People in the audience should be standing up and cheering. Some of us have read 6 or 7 of Ellul's books, as well as other similar authors, and couldn't be more happy with this articulation of reality. We can say without a doubt that Feenberg is one of the few that have mastered the art of critical theory of technology, and can add to it's density without reduction of its content.
Re: opening credits....SFU is in Burnaby, not Vancouver. This is a mistake comparable to listing the University of California Berkeley in San Francisco.
sarcee1960, SFU has a campus in Vancouver so SFU or Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, would be correct. As would Simon Fraser University, Surrey or as you point out Burnaby. All are correct.
Dear UnslavedFilms, This 'wanna-be' is a Professor who studied under Herbert Marcuse, who is a founding father in the philosophy of technology. Feenberg has the better part of half a century writing and publishing in his field. He has a well-established and notable academic record.
Questions with why and statements with because implies reason. The bird does not decide to have wings. I didn't get any farther than that flawed logic. Too drawn out.
I came to that conclusion many years ago. Thanks, but I stick by my statement. I don't disagree with the topic, I don't like the matter in which it was delivered.
Feenberg argues that if you don't have speech you are not human. I think there are many ways humans communicate and just because you can't call audibles with your mouth does not make you unhuman. The inability to communicate might make you less human but some people should actually not give speeches.
+Allen Branch He clearly stated that some people do not speak and that he was not saying they are not human. He makes it very clear that his analogy is incomplete and that he does not suggest that the physical inability to speak does not mean a person is not human.
I am glad you pointed this out. I think he meant "communication" and I wish he or someone would add something clarifying that, because what he said is ableist. And that too is a comment on technology. Communicating is a thing humans do and languages are a type of technology that evolves and changes over time. When he says there are "speechless humans" it's like he is erasing all the work humans did to craft technologies that were empowering and democratizing to people who had a hard time communicating. Building language is work and that language is empowering, therefore I think it must be technology too.
Why has nobody commented on this video. People in the audience should be standing up and cheering. Some of us have read 6 or 7 of Ellul's books, as well as other similar authors, and couldn't be more happy with this articulation of reality. We can say without a doubt that Feenberg is one of the few that have mastered the art of critical theory of technology, and can add to it's density without reduction of its content.
inspiring lecture! paradoxes are a great tool for reflecting about the relationship between technology and society
"The paradox of interpretation: you can only interpret what you already understand" in Feenberg 2010 "Between Reason and Experience"
what are the other examples aside from the lighted exit sign in the paradoxes of the origin?
Re: opening credits....SFU is in Burnaby, not Vancouver. This is a mistake comparable to listing the University of California Berkeley in San Francisco.
sarcee1960, SFU has a campus in Vancouver so SFU or Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, would be correct. As would Simon Fraser University, Surrey or as you point out Burnaby. All are correct.
Dear UnslavedFilms,
This 'wanna-be' is a Professor who studied under Herbert Marcuse, who is a founding father in the philosophy of technology. Feenberg has the better part of half a century writing and publishing in his field. He has a well-established and notable academic record.
10 percent dislike. Why? What on earth is wrong with this?
Questions with why and statements with because implies reason. The bird does not decide to have wings. I didn't get any farther than that flawed logic. Too drawn out.
I came to that conclusion many years ago. Thanks, but I stick by my statement. I don't disagree with the topic, I don't like the matter in which it was delivered.
Dribble
Feenberg argues that if you don't have speech you are not human. I think there are many ways humans communicate and just because you can't call audibles with your mouth does not make you unhuman. The inability to communicate might make you less human but some people should actually not give speeches.
+Allen Branch He clearly stated that some people do not speak and that he was not saying they are not human. He makes it very clear that his analogy is incomplete and that he does not suggest that the physical inability to speak does not mean a person is not human.
WE DO NOT COMMUNICATE BECAUSE WE HAVE SPEECH, WE HAVE SPEECH BECAUSE WE COMMUNICATE!
CONDITIONS OF PERSONHOOD. DANIEL DENNETT. ;) ;))))
I am glad you pointed this out. I think he meant "communication" and I wish he or someone would add something clarifying that, because what he said is ableist. And that too is a comment on technology. Communicating is a thing humans do and languages are a type of technology that evolves and changes over time. When he says there are "speechless humans" it's like he is erasing all the work humans did to craft technologies that were empowering and democratizing to people who had a hard time communicating. Building language is work and that language is empowering, therefore I think it must be technology too.
Lol at the guy who thinks evolution has an endpoint.