In this paper of mine, I combined different theories of philosophers which I think I can relate to the rise of Computer Mediated Communications (CMCs). These theories are Levinas’ “Facing the Face”, Harraway’s “Cyborg Manifesto” and Heidegger’s “Mitsein.” As we can see nowadays, almost all of us be it from a rich, poor or from the middle class have our own “personal/identity account” in any of the CMCs most especially in the Facebook. Our purpose is of course to socialize with other people around the world, our friends, our families, and our special someone and some, for business purposes. Our technology in the present is really advanced and continues to advance. We are living in a highly technologized and digitalized world. As what I have learned from Karl Popper’s “Falsification”, technology must advance (improve). We cannot stop the improvements happening in Science and Technology because it is their very nature. This is related to the cycle of the “geist” (thesis and anti-thesis.) Without this cycle, there is no history. Like History, there is a movement in technology. And so, if you create new gadgets now, later it will advance and evolve to a gadget which has more features and functions, making it more attractive and more useful and capable of doing different tasks. That is why life becomes simpler nowadays because of what the technology offers us. Technology makes life easier and convenient. It’s really easy now to communicate with our loved ones, family and friends through the use of cellphone, telephone, e-mail, fax and CMCs. Technologies can help us in our way of life but most of the time nowadays, if we cannot use it properly and with discipline, we end up in being controlled by it.
The first philosopher which I can relate to the rise CMCs especially the Facebook is Heidegger. I would like to relate it in his “Mitsein.” “Mitsein” is “being-with.” This kind of theory is first and foremost relational. “To be with” needs an Other. In being with the Other, relationship starts. We cannot achieve “Mitsein” without the Other. I just put in my title “Being-with-the-machine” because what I would like to emphasize first is, with the help of technology (machines, gadgets), we can be with the Other. What I really mean is that, we can be with the Other using the machines, gadgets and CMCs (half true.) This being with the Other is not personal but impersonal. We are with the Other only in the virtual world. What I am trying to say is that, we use technology to be with the Other even though it is only impersonal. Yes we become less human but here we can see that we want to continue the relationship with the Other even though we are away from each other. We can see that our “care” for the Other is still there because even though we are geographically away, there is inside us that we want to continue and secure the relationship. It is all because we are relational in nature. E-mails and cellphones were created so that relationships are monitored and care can be expressed to the Other even though we are both far from one another. Here we can see the positive side of CMCs in us in relation to our being relational beings. The problem here is that, the real body of the Other is not present. It is really different if we communicate to the Other facing each other. Presence of the body has a different flavor than virtual presence only in communication.
The second philosopher which I can relate to the rise CMCs especially the Facebook is Harraway. Harraway’s philosophy is about “Biopolitics” and “Cyborg Manifesto” but I will focus more on “Cyborg Manifesto.” “Cyborg Manifesto” is the heralding of the coming of the “cyborgs.” Cyborgs are half-human half-machine. Before, it was just a manifestation of something not real but these days, we can say that cyborgs already exist. Our Facebook accounts are one of the best examples of cyborgs. They are cyborgs because we humans are operating our account (half-human) and we have these accounts through the help of technology (half-machine.) Our accounts are our identity in the virtual world. We relate to others in virtual worlds using our account/s. In looking at Harraway’s philosophy, it is as if we become less human if we use technology. Yes she has a point. Technology alone is not human. It is just a tool or machines which makes our life easier. If we are over exposed with it, we become less relational. Look at the Facebook addict people, sometimes they spend more than half of the day in checking their accounts and their messages. They entertain their selves facing the computer almost half of the day. Worst if, they would spend more than sixteen hours in facing the computer and being on Facebook.. It’s not good anymore because it is addiction. We can use Facebook with good purposes but too much of something is not good for us. First, it is bad for our health because of the radiation we can get in facing the computer. Second, we become less relational because we choose to spend our day facing the machine (computer, and other gadgets) rather than humans. Third, we go out of the real world and we enter to the virtual world where in true relationship does not exist. That is why, we really need Social Philosophy because of the problems about depersonalization, virtual presence and individual ethos.
Another famous philosopher which I can relate to the rise of CMCs especially the Facebook is Levinas. Levinas’ theory is about the “face.” In his theory, the “face” is a structure of relationship which happens at the time of “facing.” This “face” of the Other tells us “be for me.” Our “face” tells the Other too “be for me.” Our choices are to be for him or not for him. If we are for him, we become social and relational. If we are not for him, we deny our very self as relational beings for it is human’s nature to be in relation with others. And so, we can say that being relational means we are for the Other and for the Other to be relational, the Other must be for us. If we accept that we are for the Other, responsibility comes next. Being responsible of the Other means being accountable of him/her. We are accountable of the Other whatever happens to him/her. Because we cannot “define” Other’s eidos as what Husserl’s reduction would suggest, we cannot “define” the limits of our responsibility. With this, we can say that we are infinitely responsible of the Other. That is why if we see the Other in need, we must help him/her. He/she is begging “be for me.” And so, we must help the face we are facing because he/she needs help. If we see our brothers in the community doing bad/evil things, we have the responsibility to correct him/her. Someday if we will become priests, we are expected to react against evil if we see it. In seeing evil, we must not keep quiet. We must stop it. In doing this, we make the Other see that we are concerned and have care to him/her. In relation to Facebook, can we say that we “face” the “face” of the Other through the Facebook? Does the Other still have a “face” in the virtual world? Is there such a thing as “Infinite Responsibility” in the virtual world? For me, to be in the virtual world makes us cyborgs (half-human, half-machine.) Even though we become half-human, half-machines in the virtual world, I can say that we still have the “face” and the Other has a “face” to face us. We can say that we still have a face in the virtual world because behind these cyborgs are the part of us as being relational. We humans are relational beings and we are the ones who are controlling our account/s Most of us created Facebook account for the purpose of being related to Other people which are really related in our personal life. And so, there is still a relationship happening (half true- because real relationships happens not in the virtual world.) Because there is still “face” in the virtual world, there must still be “Infinite Responsibility” to the Other. Because the “face” we face in the virtual world are cyborgs, we have the “Infinite Responsibility” to them. For example, if we see other cyborgs doing bad things in the virtual world specifically posting bad comments on others, we have the responsibility to correct him/her about his/her wrong doings. As cyborgs in the virtual world, it is our responsibility to correct other cyborgs doing bad in the virtual world. Behind these cyborgs are humans that are in nature relational.
As a conclusion, “being-with-the-machine” or specifically, to be with the computer to log on to Facebook with the purpose of being updated and to communicate and connect with our friends, family and loved ones (“facing the cyborgs”) comes the “infinite responsibility” with the other cyborgs in virtual world. Here we can see that there is still a structure of relationship in the virtual world (half true.) As cyborgs, the key for us not to be truly machines is “moderation.” In our engagement with cyborgs, machines and CMCs, we should be the ones to control them. We must never allow them to control us. Making technology controlling us is not the fault of technology but the fault of the human using it. If technology controls us, not us controlling technology, we become pure machines for we live a life of individual ethos living in the virtual world which is depersonal.
The first philosopher which I can relate to the rise CMCs especially the Facebook is Heidegger. I would like to relate it in his “Mitsein.” “Mitsein” is “being-with.” This kind of theory is first and foremost relational. “To be with” needs an Other. In being with the Other, relationship starts. We cannot achieve “Mitsein” without the Other. I just put in my title “Being-with-the-machine” because what I would like to emphasize first is, with the help of technology (machines, gadgets), we can be with the Other. What I really mean is that, we can be with the Other using the machines, gadgets and CMCs (half true.) This being with the Other is not personal but impersonal. We are with the Other only in the virtual world. What I am trying to say is that, we use technology to be with the Other even though it is only impersonal. Yes we become less human but here we can see that we want to continue the relationship with the Other even though we are away from each other. We can see that our “care” for the Other is still there because even though we are geographically away, there is inside us that we want to continue and secure the relationship. It is all because we are relational in nature. E-mails and cellphones were created so that relationships are monitored and care can be expressed to the Other even though we are both far from one another. Here we can see the positive side of CMCs in us in relation to our being relational beings. The problem here is that, the real body of the Other is not present. It is really different if we communicate to the Other facing each other. Presence of the body has a different flavor than virtual presence only in communication.
The second philosopher which I can relate to the rise CMCs especially the Facebook is Harraway. Harraway’s philosophy is about “Biopolitics” and “Cyborg Manifesto” but I will focus more on “Cyborg Manifesto.” “Cyborg Manifesto” is the heralding of the coming of the “cyborgs.” Cyborgs are half-human half-machine. Before, it was just a manifestation of something not real but these days, we can say that cyborgs already exist. Our Facebook accounts are one of the best examples of cyborgs. They are cyborgs because we humans are operating our account (half-human) and we have these accounts through the help of technology (half-machine.) Our accounts are our identity in the virtual world. We relate to others in virtual worlds using our account/s. In looking at Harraway’s philosophy, it is as if we become less human if we use technology. Yes she has a point. Technology alone is not human. It is just a tool or machines which makes our life easier. If we are over exposed with it, we become less relational. Look at the Facebook addict people, sometimes they spend more than half of the day in checking their accounts and their messages. They entertain their selves facing the computer almost half of the day. Worst if, they would spend more than sixteen hours in facing the computer and being on Facebook.. It’s not good anymore because it is addiction. We can use Facebook with good purposes but too much of something is not good for us. First, it is bad for our health because of the radiation we can get in facing the computer. Second, we become less relational because we choose to spend our day facing the machine (computer, and other gadgets) rather than humans. Third, we go out of the real world and we enter to the virtual world where in true relationship does not exist. That is why, we really need Social Philosophy because of the problems about depersonalization, virtual presence and individual ethos.
Another famous philosopher which I can relate to the rise of CMCs especially the Facebook is Levinas. Levinas’ theory is about the “face.” In his theory, the “face” is a structure of relationship which happens at the time of “facing.” This “face” of the Other tells us “be for me.” Our “face” tells the Other too “be for me.” Our choices are to be for him or not for him. If we are for him, we become social and relational. If we are not for him, we deny our very self as relational beings for it is human’s nature to be in relation with others. And so, we can say that being relational means we are for the Other and for the Other to be relational, the Other must be for us. If we accept that we are for the Other, responsibility comes next. Being responsible of the Other means being accountable of him/her. We are accountable of the Other whatever happens to him/her. Because we cannot “define” Other’s eidos as what Husserl’s reduction would suggest, we cannot “define” the limits of our responsibility. With this, we can say that we are infinitely responsible of the Other. That is why if we see the Other in need, we must help him/her. He/she is begging “be for me.” And so, we must help the face we are facing because he/she needs help. If we see our brothers in the community doing bad/evil things, we have the responsibility to correct him/her. Someday if we will become priests, we are expected to react against evil if we see it. In seeing evil, we must not keep quiet. We must stop it. In doing this, we make the Other see that we are concerned and have care to him/her. In relation to Facebook, can we say that we “face” the “face” of the Other through the Facebook? Does the Other still have a “face” in the virtual world? Is there such a thing as “Infinite Responsibility” in the virtual world? For me, to be in the virtual world makes us cyborgs (half-human, half-machine.) Even though we become half-human, half-machines in the virtual world, I can say that we still have the “face” and the Other has a “face” to face us. We can say that we still have a face in the virtual world because behind these cyborgs are the part of us as being relational. We humans are relational beings and we are the ones who are controlling our account/s Most of us created Facebook account for the purpose of being related to Other people which are really related in our personal life. And so, there is still a relationship happening (half true- because real relationships happens not in the virtual world.) Because there is still “face” in the virtual world, there must still be “Infinite Responsibility” to the Other. Because the “face” we face in the virtual world are cyborgs, we have the “Infinite Responsibility” to them. For example, if we see other cyborgs doing bad things in the virtual world specifically posting bad comments on others, we have the responsibility to correct him/her about his/her wrong doings. As cyborgs in the virtual world, it is our responsibility to correct other cyborgs doing bad in the virtual world. Behind these cyborgs are humans that are in nature relational.
As a conclusion, “being-with-the-machine” or specifically, to be with the computer to log on to Facebook with the purpose of being updated and to communicate and connect with our friends, family and loved ones (“facing the cyborgs”) comes the “infinite responsibility” with the other cyborgs in virtual world. Here we can see that there is still a structure of relationship in the virtual world (half true.) As cyborgs, the key for us not to be truly machines is “moderation.” In our engagement with cyborgs, machines and CMCs, we should be the ones to control them. We must never allow them to control us. Making technology controlling us is not the fault of technology but the fault of the human using it. If technology controls us, not us controlling technology, we become pure machines for we live a life of individual ethos living in the virtual world which is depersonal.
RSS Feed