Oyvind
(Administrator)
Show profile
Link to this post
Subject: Internet is making us stupid!
Law professor Cass Sunstein claims in his new book Republic.com 2.0 that democracy is the first casualty of political discourse in the digital age:
Van Heuvelen continues:
This applies not only for the Internet. The need to express our views and beliefs without having to listen to contradiction or gainsaying—indeed, the very right to do so—is near self-evident in the West today. Should anyone try to question or destabilise this privilege he is automatically displaced as an uncivilised brute. He doesn't stand a chance in the media. Quickly he is silenced, he becomes a skeleton not to be mentioned in good company. Still, challenging these views and beliefs is a major task of philosophy and philosophers. The task is to challenge people's ideas, not in order to spite or annoy them, but in order to make them realise for themselves that they have in fact a responsibility to challenge themselves.
Sunstein should have a closer look at today's global philosophical movements. The brand-new UNESCO report about philosophy in the world, Philosophy, a school of freedom—Teaching philosophy and learning to philosophise. Status and prospects, would be a good place to start.
[...] If new technology gives us unprecedented access to information, it also gives us more ways to avoid information we don't like. Conservatives are increasingly seeking only conservative views, liberals are seeking only liberal views, and never the twain shall meet. (Quoted from Ben Van Heuvelen's interview with the author at Salon.com called "Internet is making us stupid.")
Van Heuvelen continues:
What gets lost in these polarized times, Sunstein writes, are traditional civic virtues like civility, self-criticism and open-mindedness. He uses experiments and statistical analyses to back that up: One study of hyperlinking patterns on the Web shows that political bloggers rarely highlight opposing opinions -- of 1,400 blogs surveyed, 91 percent of links were to like-minded sites. A central problem, Sunstein argues, is that Americans now think of themselves more as consumers than as citizens. When it comes to the Internet, we demand the right to reinforce our own beliefs without embracing the responsibility to challenge them.
This applies not only for the Internet. The need to express our views and beliefs without having to listen to contradiction or gainsaying—indeed, the very right to do so—is near self-evident in the West today. Should anyone try to question or destabilise this privilege he is automatically displaced as an uncivilised brute. He doesn't stand a chance in the media. Quickly he is silenced, he becomes a skeleton not to be mentioned in good company. Still, challenging these views and beliefs is a major task of philosophy and philosophers. The task is to challenge people's ideas, not in order to spite or annoy them, but in order to make them realise for themselves that they have in fact a responsibility to challenge themselves.
Sunstein should have a closer look at today's global philosophical movements. The brand-new UNESCO report about philosophy in the world, Philosophy, a school of freedom—Teaching philosophy and learning to philosophise. Status and prospects, would be a good place to start.
Retention of strangeness is the only antidote to estrangement. T. W. Adorno