Wu Laoshi once mentioned that in the future Xiaogu might perhaps be able to do some specialized research in the philosophy of technology of media; of course, that is something to think about later.
Indeed, for me, concern with media is by no means a spur-of-the-moment interest, but a very fundamental, connecting perspective.
Wu Laoshi once distinguished between two kinds of “philosophy of technology” (or, more generally, “XX-philosophy”): one is as a departmental philosophy, that is, taking XX as the object of philosophical reflection; the other is as a philosophical character, that is, taking XX as the foundation, direction, or point of departure of the whole of philosophy (in this light, what my uncle said does make some sense, if he was referring to the latter kind of philosophy of technology). If it is the first kind of philosophy, then it is like “management philosophy,” “engineering philosophy,” “wealth philosophy,” “eating philosophy,” and the like, belonging to a greater or smaller field within the whole of philosophy, to the point that one could even say it is an “application” of philosophy; but if it is the second kind of philosophy, then it is like “natural philosophy” in ancient Greek times or “philosophy of science” in the Vienna School. For those philosophers, “XX-philosophy” is their whole philosophy. Ancient Greek natural philosophy was not a philosophical field that discussed nature as an object; it was philosophy that took “nature,” that is, “nature” as in “essence,” as its fundamental concern and line of thought. Wu Laoshi pointed out that if an “XX-philosophy” as a departmental philosophy is to have “a bright future” and possess inexhaustible vitality, then it often must originate from an “XX-philosophy” as a philosophical character.
Thus, although natural philosophy and philosophy of science seem somewhat old and worn, they still have a future, and the young philosophy of technology certainly has an even “great future.” Then what about my “media philosophy”? More precisely: “the philosophy of technology of media”? That is to say, merely a subdepartment under philosophy of technology as a departmental philosophy—then this thing’s prospects are truly worrying…
But in fact, “media philosophy” is no small matter. In fact, it has the potential entirely to replace “philosophy of technology,” and to open up philosophy of science as well, thereby becoming a philosophical system as a philosophical character.
Why do I say this? We must first look at this: what, exactly, is media? — Media belong to technology; that seems beyond dispute, and yet perhaps the more appropriate way to put it is: technology belongs to media.
Technology is “a means serving ends”? Heidegger said this definition is not bad but not true either. But if one says “technology is the way truth happens,” that is probably too abstruse and far removed from everyday understanding. A philosophical definition is best derived by slightly revising everyday understanding. For instance, might we say: technology is “the medium through which one comes into contact with a target (and ‘deals with’ the target)”?
To say “a means serving ends” makes it seem as though what we care about is only the end, and that our concern for the means is nothing more than whether they can effectively achieve the end; and once the end has been achieved, what means were used becomes a matter of no consequence. Up the building, down the ladder: whether one went up the stairs or took the elevator before reaching the upper floor is even equivalent. This readily leads to the “technological neutrality” theory. But “media” are different. With respect to the same thing, whether you approach it with your hand or your eye, or touch it with your hand through a glove, or look at it with your eye through a microscope—these are of course completely different matters. In other words, if the goal is the same, namely to reach it and “deal with” it, then the medium through which this is accomplished is absolutely crucial. As “media,” different “means” cannot be treated as equivalent to one another or replace one another.
Teacher Liu once mentioned that all education is nothing more than teaching people how to “deal with things/people.” Roughly speaking, one kind is dealing with things, dealing with nature; another kind is dealing with people, dealing with society. Well said.
And so, the point is precisely that “dealing with things/people” always requires “media”: people deal with one another through “language” and other actions; writing, printing, television, the internet, and so on change the “media” through which people deal with one another. The so-called “the medium is the message” is precisely saying that such changes in media will change the “essence” of the way people deal with things/people; that is to say, the advent of printing did not merely make information originally transmitted through writing more convenient and efficient, but fundamentally changed information itself.
What about people “dealing with” things? For a long time, Western philosophy did not pay attention to the “media” through which people “deal with” things, and what modern philosophy calls the “epistemological turn” is precisely this: people always know the world through sensory experience; that is to say, can people bypass the senses, this “medium,” and directly come into contact with things “in themselves”? It can be said that all the problems of modern epistemology originate from this “discovery of media.” Twentieth-century philosophy then had a “linguistic turn,” precisely because people discovered that all “theories” need to be expressed through language, this medium. As for so-called philosophy of technology and practical philosophy, that goes without saying.
Simply put, the series of turns in philosophy since modern times can almost all be traced back to the discovery, in various fields, of the non-neutral, inescapable “medium.”
From this it can be seen that a “media philosophy” has long been waiting to emerge; epistemology, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, philosophy of technology, practical philosophy, communication studies, ethics, and so on, can all be connected through “media philosophy.”
In this way, it becomes unlikely that I would choose media issues as the direction of my specialization. Because Wu Laoshi’s intention was to have me narrow and focus as soon as possible, but for me this media issue is precisely the broadest field…
February 20, 2008
Latest Comments
- holy
2008-05-08 20:09:31 anonymous 116.228.248.154
Your analysis is very reasonable. Judging from what you mean, in order to narrow and focus as soon as possible, what you want to do is philosophy in the true sense of the word as a “departmental” philosophy, right?
Although I know nothing about media philosophy, I feel that Wu Laoshi probably wants you to do media philosophy that is quite different from what your article today refers to.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply