Philosophy Uscb Understanding Technology and Technical Knowledge Questions

December 17, 2022

Description
Help need two comment reply
1.We need to understand ourselves today in the midst of technology and technical knowledge itself cannot help us (Feenberg,2003, pg.1). Technical innovation and advancements have created a more conducive and convenient lifestyle. As a result, the continuous use of technology can create a dependency reshaping the values of society. This dependency equals a loss of autonomy and self-actualization.
Accommodation with identity and technology has created the need for profound reflection. Philosophy of technology belongs to the self-awareness of a society like ours. It teaches us to reflect on what we take for granted, specifically, rational modernity (Feenberg. 2003, pg.1). Feenberg (2003) refers humanity to a sort of laboring animal, people are kinetic in nature and the innovation of technology has the potential to create a stagnant quality of life. This relates to Feenbergs (2003) point of existence versus essence. Existence allows someone to understand what is or is not, while essence is what something is. Existence is a matter of just only living while, essence is a matter of quality of living. Technology itself, generally, doesn’t hold value until people place value on it. People can place technical advancements on a pedestal allowing it to live their life for them coasting by only existing and not living (essence).
2 In its simplest of terms, technology is defined as the application of science for practical purposes; however, this definition lacks the moral and creative implications of the concept. Although the intent of technology may be to harness the mechanisms of nature to further humanity in a way otherwise impossible, the human element adds a connotation that cannot be defined in a purely naturalistic or scientific way. Although technology facilitates the means by which humans interact with machines or nature, it cannot be defined in either terms without losing some of the value of its design (Cook, S. D. N, pp. 6). The design of technology itself involves a human intention, which in turn involves the personal (and/or societal) morals and motivations of the entity that created it. Defining the machine by its process alone is to not recognize this human element, as would also be true in defining it purely by its effect on nature. The creative purpose which brought it from idea to design to prototype is the very essence of the innovation of technology, and as such technology cannot be properly defined without it. Therefore, a more accurate definition of technology would be the application of human intention, one which is created using the means of nature and science in its design, but which transcends itself into more than just the sum of its parts.
It is within this human element that defines the morality of technology; the machine itself has no autonomous intention (as of yet, in regard to the current limitations of A.I. technologies), but is itself incorporated with human intention in its design. Put into other words, the meaning and purpose of things is something we create not something we discover, (Feenberg, A., pp. 4). With this in mind, technology cannot be neutral, since the intent of its design is what defines its role in the world; although a nuclear warhead is not itself an evil entity, it cannot be utilized for any other purpose. In fact, disposing of it incorrectly can also lead to a means of destruction, and while the warhead does not have those intentions, it also cannot be classified as neutral, since for it to truly be neutral it would have to be either dismantled or repurposed into something else; while the nuclear warhead remains, a threat to both human and natural health is imposed. The machine does not have the means to make this choice autonomously (yet, thank goodness), but the intention of the design cannot be changed with the machine remaining as it is.
Furthermore, the existence of a nuclear warhead can motivate other countries to make their own more powerful weapons as a means of defense, and while the machine itself did not impose its will onto that country by means of recognized communication, the mere existence of it did. The implication of the possible destruction that the machine is capable of has spread its influence to create more powerful weapons, setting an unproductive chain of events in motion; can this machine still be called neutral? The technology itself does not have any inherent intention, but since it is the culmination of human innovation, it is not a product of pure nature. Humanity, and by extension human morals and values, are incorporated into its very being. It is not something that would naturally occur, and thus cannot be categorized as such; in fact, without a motivation in the first place, it would likely not have been built. It does not have the freedom of choice, but is itself a product of pre-determined choices, ones that did not start with a neutral intent. Therefore, it has become part of the social entity that designed it (Feenberg, A., pp. 5), and cannot reasonably be classified as separate or neutral.

Comment 1 and 2 respectively.
About 150-200 words

Philosophy Uscb Understanding Technology and Technical Knowledge Questions

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.