Heidegger's explanation of the presence and being of an object led me to reflect upon the difference between the design of an object and the utility of an object, and to consider whether technology follows the same patterns. When nature causes an object (a plant or a river, for example) to come into being, the object has no intended utility. The plant or river is a plant or a river. When man harnesses the natural object it gains utility. When man harvests or uses the plant it now has utility; we can use it to sustain us physically or we can use it to beautify our life. The flower, however, had no sense of utility, it was simply existing in nature before it was given purpose. In the case of natural entities, they are without utility until they are harnessed or consumed as a commodity. Northern rivers are without utility until they are harnessed to produce electricity. The point I am trying to make here is that natural things are without utility until man repurposes them.
Man made commodities have purpose from their inception. Without utility, they would not be created in the first place. They are created with a distinct, intended utility.
However, man made objects may have unintended utility. A screw driver may be re-purposed to pry paint can lids off, a butter knife may be used as a screwdriver.
It is our ingenuity and creativeness that allows us to use technology to produce outcomes beyond their intended purpose.
The challenge with technology in education is to see beyond the intended utility of the technology and to discover others means of harnessing the technology in ways that add utility to that technology, not to be constrained by the prima facie intent of the technology.
I understand what you are saying with nature producing without utility. The flower and the river bend are produced through the action of nature and not created with the intention to meet a need / a utility. Whereas man creates to fulfill a need. It is man who imposes new purposes on nature and on technology.
ReplyDeleteThis is our danger; we can not precisely predict the purpose that we or some of us will impose on the technology. We need to consider the potential to the best of our abilities prior to creation or implementation.
So if a tree or a river was created without utility, then why was man created?
ReplyDeleteNow comes the big question fluke or function, intelligent design or maelstrom manufacturing???
To find the truth, the revealing of purpose, when we and philosopher's begin this investigation of thought, for purpose and meaning of our being and "Man's" purpose of being. Do you think God considered the four causalities?
you reply assumes that man was created with utility. Note that I was careful to say "nature causes"..
Deleteso lets assume that man is caused by nature to exist. The utility of man is not known until man is then given purpose - by man. The difference between man and other natural beings is that man alone has the option to decide if they have utility, and how much.