“A convivial society should be designed to allow all its members the most autonomous action by means of tools least controlled by others. People feel joy, as opposed to mere pleasure, to the extent that their activities are creative; while the growth of tools beyond a certain point increases regimentation, dependence, exploitation, and impotence.”
You write: "At the same time, however, it also seems to me that especially given the scale and scope of our problems, it may be that we need to draw attention again to very basic and fundamental realities. That we must learn again what it means to take responsibility for the good of our neighbor. That we must rediscover our responsibility to tend the social commons that it may be reconstructed in such a way that human beings may flourish in it once again. For as human beings, we depend not only on nature, but on our second nature, the realm of culture; both require our care and our maintenance, both must be cultivated if they are to yield the fruit."
This seems to me to be the language of moral vision, one similar to that of Josef Pieper, which in your blog post "Attention and the Moral Life", you indicated represents a lost moral vision that we are no longer able to recover. I agree that the terminology of his moral vision may be beyond recovery, but I think it might be possible to translate some of his basic concepts into terms that might appeal to those struggling with moral entropy of digital life today.
In the case of TikTok, could we not use this to demonstrate the positive role played by shame in human life? For instance, one of the basic ways to build moral character is by reflective self-knowledge which fosters a constant cycle of self-criticism and improvement. Shannon Vallor calls this the "cultivated self": "A cultivated self is one that has been improved by conscious, lifelong efforts to bring one’s examined thoughts, feelings, and actions nearer to some normative ideal." - Technology and the Virtues. To abandon shame is in some sense to abandon humanity which requires a form of self-consciousness which encompasses an inextinguishable element of self-respect. Could there be a way to reinvigorate elements of the "lost moral vision" through a renewed understanding of the role of shame in human life?
Boyd echoes some of this but this part stuck out as odd to me:
"Given the erosion of the distinction between private and public life, neither now retains its integrity and we are in danger of losing the goods and consolations that we might have been available to us in either."
The distinction between public and private is modern -- this conception of privacy. 11th century serfs knew little of private matters (they even lacked the vocabulary to assert themselves as persons/individuals). Shame is a major part of their life, which is almost totally public. Isn't it more accurate to say that privacy was constructed to hide sin and after establishing it within, it most certainly escapes without?
I don't know that digital technology accomplishes much more than exacerbating previously established morays. But this is obviously a very Pieper take as well.
You write: "At the same time, however, it also seems to me that especially given the scale and scope of our problems, it may be that we need to draw attention again to very basic and fundamental realities. That we must learn again what it means to take responsibility for the good of our neighbor. That we must rediscover our responsibility to tend the social commons that it may be reconstructed in such a way that human beings may flourish in it once again. For as human beings, we depend not only on nature, but on our second nature, the realm of culture; both require our care and our maintenance, both must be cultivated if they are to yield the fruit."
This seems to me to be the language of moral vision, one similar to that of Josef Pieper, which in your blog post "Attention and the Moral Life", you indicated represents a lost moral vision that we are no longer able to recover. I agree that the terminology of his moral vision may be beyond recovery, but I think it might be possible to translate some of his basic concepts into terms that might appeal to those struggling with moral entropy of digital life today.
In the case of TikTok, could we not use this to demonstrate the positive role played by shame in human life? For instance, one of the basic ways to build moral character is by reflective self-knowledge which fosters a constant cycle of self-criticism and improvement. Shannon Vallor calls this the "cultivated self": "A cultivated self is one that has been improved by conscious, lifelong efforts to bring one’s examined thoughts, feelings, and actions nearer to some normative ideal." - Technology and the Virtues. To abandon shame is in some sense to abandon humanity which requires a form of self-consciousness which encompasses an inextinguishable element of self-respect. Could there be a way to reinvigorate elements of the "lost moral vision" through a renewed understanding of the role of shame in human life?
Boyd echoes some of this but this part stuck out as odd to me:
"Given the erosion of the distinction between private and public life, neither now retains its integrity and we are in danger of losing the goods and consolations that we might have been available to us in either."
The distinction between public and private is modern -- this conception of privacy. 11th century serfs knew little of private matters (they even lacked the vocabulary to assert themselves as persons/individuals). Shame is a major part of their life, which is almost totally public. Isn't it more accurate to say that privacy was constructed to hide sin and after establishing it within, it most certainly escapes without?
I don't know that digital technology accomplishes much more than exacerbating previously established morays. But this is obviously a very Pieper take as well.