(330 words).
“The television screen has become the retina of the mind’s eye.” Media theorist Marshall McLuhan alerted us to the fact that the forms of media, more than the actual content delivered through them, is what shapes human activity. The choices that are presented to you on the ballot are largely a construction of what you have seen and heard through media. Political parties are brands and an election campaign is the opportunity for them to promote and sell their brand to you, the democratic consumer.
READ MORE (782 words).
Posted by admin | Filed Under 10, 8
February 8, 2006 | Leave a Comment
Jeremy Hutcheson’s essay on “Bioethics and the new creation” (Issue 5) commendably directs our attention to several pertinent issues regarding man’s use of technology. It is important to act against the abuse of technology, and to counterbalance cultural mindsets when and where they need to be counterbalanced. By speaking of technology in this manner, Hutcheson creates a recurring theme in his article, joining many other twentieth and twentyfirst century authors in treating technology as an entity in itself, that is, as something that exists apart from humanity and that works against it in many instances. What this treatment seems to forget is that technology is really nothing more than tekhn-logi, that is, knowledge or science about an art, skill, craft, method, or system, applied to some purpose. That’s all
technology is: concepts which people choose to apply to a certain end. Obviously, this knowledge affects the limits of what a person can or cannot do. And, of course, if someone falls into patterns or attitudes towards exploring (or exploiting) any or all of those powers that fall within their reach, this can be very detrimental to others. But it’s the person who is responsible for these patterns and attitudes, not the knowledge. This intellectual stance shifts the focus away from the real problem, which lies in human choices, rather than in humanity’s knowledge about the world. This shift has two readily apparent effects, both of which I believe to be detrimental to actually solving the problems pointed out not only by Hutcheson but by the authors he quotes. The first effect of this intellectual stance is the
creation of the specter of technology. This specter allows us to express our ill feelings about the misuses of technology without actually engaging those who are misusing it. We can cite examples of how technology allows sweat shops to operate, how it allows the creation of the atomic bomb, how it makes genetic selection possible, and use these to decry technology, as if it were an entity with moral responsibilities. It makes a nice target that we can hurl accusations at, something that needs to be limited, stopped, turned around, reformed, fixed, rebelled against, and so on. I fear, however, that while all of these may express very significant sentiments that should be hurled at someone, we take the easy road by hurling them at the specter of technology because it can’t fight back. The second effect of this stance
is to take the focus away from where it should be, namely, human responsibility. From our earliest recorded history, humans have used their tools for evil as well as good. The fundamental problem is not the tools; it is our human propensity to use those tools in our ingenious perpetration of evil. Thus, arguments that technology must be limited are meaningless if they are not directed at those who can limit it (and have not done so). Yes, humans are affected and carried away by their ideas. Yes, these ideas and attitudes can be talked about and discussed. But in the end, it is humans who will limit their use of technology (or not, and then there will be no one left to talk about it). It is humans who are autonomous and, to an extent, sovereign, and who need to use this autonomy and sovereignty responsibly to control
their attitudes and actions. It is humans who tend to systematize nature and humanity, and who need to be engaged directly and confronted when they do so. Our task is not to target technology, but rather to engage the human soul. We must direct our efforts towards drawing humanity into an appropriate relationship with God, nature and fellow man, and encourage humanity to set its own limits. In the end, it will be far more effective to engage and work towards that target than to hurl bitter words at shadows in the void.
Perma-Link (650 words).
February 8, 2006 | Leave a Comment
As controversy swirls around the campus, many students and faculty alike are beginning to question. Some have questioned old ways of doing things, old patterns, and old habits in need of change. Others have questioned the authority, the laws, the traditions, and the even the questioners. As Christians, questioning can seem foreign to us. By the time we Christians are eight years old we’ve pretty much got life figured out. We know all the steps, all the rules and all the hoops to jump through. Although we mostly fail at putting these ideals into practice, we accept that that’s part of the process and continue in our journey towards perfection. The whole thing is actually quite simple: love God, love your neighbour, and help out a poor person from time to time. No need to question. Obedience has got to be right up there with cleanliness and godliness, right? Perhaps this really is the most beautiful thing about our faith: it gives us answers. It gives our lives meaning and purpose. We know that we are living for something and for someone. We don’t often have to worry about the nihilism and meaninglessness that plagues society and the pop culture around us. Life is valuable and sacred. God loves us– there’s nothing more beautiful than this. However, a man much smarter and more poetic than myself once said, “Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” Christianity is about the search rather than the discovery of truth. Christ spoke in parables that even he said his closest followers would be unable to understand. He didn’t give us the key to life in five simple steps. We have to figure that stuff out on our own. As Christian university students, wholly devoted to our education and personal growth, we cannot allow our healthy curiosity to waver. We must always be wondering, thinking, and questioning. We have a lot to learn from this great institution, but the university can also learn from us. Questions and criticism are not a form of attack. They usually aren’t meant to hurt or to destroy. The greatest of all questioners, Socrates, when finally tried and arrested for his crimes against society, submitted himself to the laws of the state. He was not after his beloved city’s demise, but rather its improvement. And it is in the same way that we as students must approach our administration. We must remember that this is not a battle between two sides. This is not an attempt to destroy something that has served us all incredibly well; but rather, as iron sharpens iron, let us work together with the administration and ask the questions that will lead to the improvement of our beloved institution. Each of us has chosen to come to Trinity freely and we are all grateful for the opportunity. However, this university also belongs, in part, to all of us. As we take ownership of this place, let us question the things that need to change to see a better place for all.
