The ancients devoted entire literature and sciences to explaining the impact of the means through which knowledge is transmitted and the means by which it is received, i.e. what is necessary for both the teacher and the learner, in terms of their interference in the way information is presented, the way it is understood through it, the sensations it elicits, and the feelings that you tame, not to mention the mind that you discipline and prepare to achieve its goal.
They were allocated because some of the means weaken the senses, some of them activate it, some of them incapacitate the mind, and some of them enhance it. Starting from the way and place of sitting, to the hours of learning and their harmony with the nature of man, and ending with the subject of knowledge itself, for which there will definitely not be a list if the necessary conditions for its correct transmission are absent.
On the contrary, the democracy of technology--that banishes the limits of time and space--has obtained most of the necessary preparation attempts to deal with topics of all their differences, until all content has been flattened and distorted, and the science of the means of transmitting knowledge in its proper way has become a mere delirium that is not accepted by our democratic era, which allows everything. For everyone, no matter what.
This is a topic that if we talk about it for a long time, our speech will inevitably be dominated by indefinite phrases. We will continue to repeat phrases like everything, everyone, any place, and any place, because the essence of the topic is the denial of definiteness, and considering it merely a form of power that restricts, frames, and suppresses.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is one of the examples that reveals the concealed discontinuities and the neglected divisions that we have become unable to think of deeply due to the dullness promoted by the securing smooth-running efficiency of the natural sciences. A basic question like what is science for is closed by the most dogmatic answer, i.e. progress.
For me, in this civilizational condition, science boils down to the question of progress. If you believe in progress, especially if in the liberal sense, questions like the nature of the relation between knowledge and politics, spirituality and science, morality and prosperity, man and the world, will never trouble you because the horizon of progress provides you an ultimate optimistic synthesis. The futural horizon offered by this worldview is underpinned by sciences whose hardliners deny that they have any ideological dimension. While these sciences, in this civilizational context, have become a preparation for an ineffable theophany that subordinates our activities without even realizing it.
#Essays
They were allocated because some of the means weaken the senses, some of them activate it, some of them incapacitate the mind, and some of them enhance it. Starting from the way and place of sitting, to the hours of learning and their harmony with the nature of man, and ending with the subject of knowledge itself, for which there will definitely not be a list if the necessary conditions for its correct transmission are absent.
On the contrary, the democracy of technology--that banishes the limits of time and space--has obtained most of the necessary preparation attempts to deal with topics of all their differences, until all content has been flattened and distorted, and the science of the means of transmitting knowledge in its proper way has become a mere delirium that is not accepted by our democratic era, which allows everything. For everyone, no matter what.
This is a topic that if we talk about it for a long time, our speech will inevitably be dominated by indefinite phrases. We will continue to repeat phrases like everything, everyone, any place, and any place, because the essence of the topic is the denial of definiteness, and considering it merely a form of power that restricts, frames, and suppresses.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is one of the examples that reveals the concealed discontinuities and the neglected divisions that we have become unable to think of deeply due to the dullness promoted by the securing smooth-running efficiency of the natural sciences. A basic question like what is science for is closed by the most dogmatic answer, i.e. progress.
For me, in this civilizational condition, science boils down to the question of progress. If you believe in progress, especially if in the liberal sense, questions like the nature of the relation between knowledge and politics, spirituality and science, morality and prosperity, man and the world, will never trouble you because the horizon of progress provides you an ultimate optimistic synthesis. The futural horizon offered by this worldview is underpinned by sciences whose hardliners deny that they have any ideological dimension. While these sciences, in this civilizational context, have become a preparation for an ineffable theophany that subordinates our activities without even realizing it.
#Essays