I have a no-electronic-devices policy. In a few classes, one notices that students make more trips to the “restroom,” but in general the students are stuck with ordinary daydreaming if they don’t want to listen to me or their classmates.
Sara, you are shuting yourself off from the truth about Homo Faber.
Interestingly enough if you read Christopher Columbus Langdell’s early notes on Harvard Law, all the students rebelled from listening to Langdell or classmates. They just wanted the black letter law. The “tools” so to speak.
Listening to long winded professors and classmates! Nooo!
Turkle is probably right about the legal proffesion. I know she is a famous and respected prof. at MIT, on the other hand her scientific knowledge translated into the “tools” of language, basically end up sounding like a combination of Langdell and Arendt.
I think it is a good article in the NYT, and I couldn’t help but laugh at its similarities to my own post along similar lines. See the post on Locke, and various forms of property, where I suggested “You are what you eat”, almost exactly what Turkle quips in the NYT, citing Shakespeare. (Oh really?)
Homo Faber is no joke. The burden of proof is on you to defend Homo Sapiens. Note this passage also in the New York Times reviewing the book:
“In the end, it’s just another tool, an accessory that allows us to do what we’ve always done: interact with one other. The form of these interactions is always changing. But the conversation remains.”
Mail (will not be published) (required)