requestId:684c3ded715059.40205446.
In the face of technological challenges
Author: Bai Tongdong
Source: Author Author Authorized Confucian Network, Original from “Beijing Major Research. Philosophy and Social Science Edition” 2017 Issue 2
Time: Confucius was the 2568th year of Dingyou, June 24th, Jiaxu
Jesus August 15, 2017
Content summary: Although we often use “science” and “technology”, there is a serious difference between the two, and modern technology directly confronts human life. Although technical progress has often been regarded as a gospel to solve human suffering, some thinkers have long known that the positive impact of technological progress on the character’s career is often accompanied by the harm to human virtues and the value of life. The new challenge of contemporary technology to provide humans directly demonstrates the ability of humans to self-disinfect on the body. “Returning to nature” is a solution to technological challenges. But if it is true, because humanity is not “natural”, its price is to reject all knowledge and to maintain a small and small society in politics. A moderate solution is based on contemporary technology, which can effectively identify and control the dangers of technology. In order to achieve this goal, we must make the people truly informed and encourage the people to participate. However, we must also understand the limitations of the participation of the people.
Keywords: Technical Philosophy/Reading the Natural/Technical Decision/Mixed Politics
Title Note: This article is a phased result of the special award of Shanghai universities (Oriental Scholars).
1. The division between science and technology
The current technology has fully integrated into our careers. What it offers to humans seems to be infinite energy. This makes us full of hope and fear. How to deal with technology has become one of the focus issues that everyone from the public, policy makers, and philosophers pays attention to. AsA person who is philosophical, in this article, I will propose some philosophical reflections on this question.
Before entering this topic, we began to focus on the “science” and “technology” that are often applied in related discussions. In people’s minds, especially in the eyes of those who are full of concern for the development of science and technology, scientists are often creators who are not well-built, do not possess people’s smoke (or may be disdainful of smoke), and are brave enough to break various borders. Their creative nature is admirable on the one hand, but it is also worrying on the other hand. However, scientific philosopher Thomas Kuhn once pointed out the serious difference between modern science or basic science represented by physics, and application science (engineering, technology) and invention and creation. He pointed out that in the era of normal science, rather than in the rare scientific revolution, the learning of science is realized through strict training based on common textbooks. Its goal is to allow students to grasp a common scientific paradigm, and what they train is this convergent form of thinking, rather than a divergent form of thinking that emphasizes creativity. In other words, the training in the regular scientific era emphasizes respect for the neighborhood, not breaking. In contrast, applied science and creative invention do not have such strong “oldness”. Therefore, basic scientists and application scientists and engineers are very different people because of their original temperament, training and selection. Therefore, few people can be very successful in both fields.
When we are concerned about the unrestricted development of “technology” and when we worry about the persecution brought to humans by scientists, what we worry about is not scientists focusing on basic science, but researchers and inventors of applied science (engineering technology). We can say that without Einstein’s E=MC[2] formula and progress in quantum mechanics, we would not be able to create atomic bullets. However, the goal of the former mission is to understand the world. They discussed themselves that if they were not war and other social and political pressures, they would not be able to become atomic bombs and nuclear power stations without the tasks of engineers and technical personnel. Therefore, we must at most admit that the research and development of basic scientists is at most a layer separated from the impact of technology that we are delighted or worried about. What is directly related is engineering and technology application science. Therefore, before we enter the question of the impact of technology on humans, we must first clarify that the “technology” here refers to engineering technology.
2. Technical progress: Gospel or poison?
Due to the grand progress of contemporary technology, many threats and inconveniences in human life can be controlled or even eliminated. Many thinkers in the Enemy and later periods have trusted that the advancement of science (as we say, it should be technology) will bring us a more wonderful today. For example, John Stuart Mill, who brought the progressive energy of the Victorian era, pointed out that through social setting, teaching, and personal efforts, positive evils in the world will be reduced to less and less until very narrow limits. Even the most difficult disease to deal with, through the above skills, especially through scientific progress, you can be directly impressed, thus dispelling the source of human suffering and enhancing human happiness. ②
But not all people are so happy about the consequences of technological progress. Needless to mention the rapid and violent technology that made Ren Lin full of eyes and thrilling, as early as the ancient Greek era, Plato expressed deep gratitude to the progress of medicine in “Fantasy Country”. Sucrates pointed out that the (overly) need for doctors, especially those who seem to be born with high caution, is one of the most serious ambitions for a city-state to teach slutty and humbleness. Sucrates also pointed out that (405c-408c) that the goal of medicine is to keep the people in the city-state healthy, so that they can teach their bodies and souls, improve their virtues, and serve the city-state. A virtuous citizen should be aware of this. However, some citizens and doctors who lack morality develop medicine and only focus on physical health and self-health. And their attention to their bodies has also made them constantly discover new “diseases” and new medicines. In other words, their lack of virtue makes them focus on medicine, and the progress of medicine is not beneficial to their moral progress, and even doubles their dependence on medicine. This kind of evil cycle has cultivated a group of useless people who are ignorant from the perspective of the city-state. Although it was said more than two thousand years ago, this seems to be a accurate description of our mediocre era that is fully concerned about health.
Sucrates raised an ordinary question here: Are all diseases and all people worthy of treatment? Confucius also expressed similar methods. Facing a man named Yuan Rang, “The Master said: ‘Young but not a brother, you are old but not told you, and you are old but not dead, this is for a reward.’ Knock his love with a stick” (“Speech·心词”)⑤. In other words, medicine and other technologies must serve higher goals. Without such a goal guidance, the progress of the medicine itself will not only be beneficial, but even harmless.
Back to the view of Mill described later, Sucrates and Confucius said that even if the medicine reduces the pain and makes people more happy, those who rely too much on medicine (rather than through the progress of morality) deserve to be happy? Moreover, in the discussion of “Fantasy Country”, Herodicus, the initiator of this dependence on medicine, was mentioned. He was in a state of turmoil and could only use all his time and energy to constantly invent medicine. Such a career is hard to say that it is happy. Among modern people, it seems that this kind of person is becoming more and more healthy, but his career is becoming more and more unhappy. In other words, when we focus on medicine (technology) rather than moral cultivation, whether humans can really be happier has become a question.
3. Unique challenges in modern technology
Of course, we can say that these are the high-level discussions of moral philosophers protecting network VIP. Moreover, whether to be happy, whether to live, or be effective for a city-state or a country is a politically incorrect statement that is not suitable for the energy of the same era. We modern people can be addicted to health or a new iPhone. Maybe in the eyes of these philosophers, it is a mediocre career. As long as we can enjoy ourselves, what if we have progressed?! However, the advancement of contemporary technology has also cultivated more direct or severe challenges for human beings from the perspective of public health or even survival. In a profound and pure introduction article on technical philosophy, Huang Xiang gave a simple and clear description of this challenge. He pointed out that in terms of relationship with human society, a principled charac
發佈留言