Is Technology EVIL w/ Dr. Alex Plato

Full Show: Coming Soon
Dr. Alex Plato explains the philosophy of if Technologies are good or bad. He and Matt distinguish between the technologies itself and the use of the technologies.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT):
📖 Fr. Pine's Book: bit.ly/3lEsP8F
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd

[@lupedelgadillo2257]

EVIL IS HARMING....GOOD IS HELPFUL

[@brendamyc3173]

Technology can be evil if it’s abused.

[@mrbaker7443]

If you don’t want technology become Amish

[@matheuspinho4987]

Telling the Truth is usually harmful

[@matheuspinho4987]

​@@mrbaker7443if you want technology become a Cyborg

[@jaroslavkorbel8385]

big if true

[@francismcglynn4169]

“Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Th 2:3-4.) “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and Scripture cannot be nullified), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.“ (Jn. 10:35-38.) “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and that temple you are.” (1 Co 3:16-17.) Choosing to reject the teaching of Christ is choosing to be your own god. Learn to pray and become the Temple of God.

[@lisbethkelly4480]

Amen.

[@JakubFerenc1911]

former PhD student in Philosophy of science and technology here: Dr. Plato (nice surname) is wrong. Technology is not neutral and the neutrality of technology has long been abandoned in philosophy. Read McLuhan, Don Ihde, Peter-Paul Verbeek, Latour, Lambros Malafouris, Joe Henrich… The idea why is mainly twofold: 1) Micro level: imagine a naked human being on an island. You have say 50 things you can do and think about. Now, introduce a knife. The knife will AFFORD you to do and think about new things you did not do and think about before in the interaction between you, trees, hunting game etc. The introduction of knife literally changes contents of your mind and give raise to thoughts and potential behaviours that were not present in your consciousness before. This is the “micro” influence on a local, individual level. 2) Macro level: Each technology introduced into a society changes evolutionary path of that given technology. A “human+tool” is in most contexts better for survival than just a “human”. The society has historically evolved around the way people can exploit technologies for survival benefit and thus those having genes that predispose them to take advantage of the technology better will be propagated to next generations, therefore each new generation there will be a better “fit” for a relation between humans and the tool. In other words, each technology is a novel evolutionary selection mechanism. Not a natural selection, but an artificial/cultural selection. Therefore, technology is not neutral, per Don Ihde and Verbeek, technology is “non-neutral”. Technology affords, nudges, changes, transforms, co-shapes our cognition, values, contents of consciousness, and in that regard also cultural and societal path of a given society. The important here is “co-shapes”. It does not determine, but it is not neutral either. Thus non-neutral.

[@peterh.636]

It seems like the argument is basically that the introduction of new technology changes the trajectory of human history positively or negatively. So, let’s say that a new technology, like the knife, makes humanity more efficient. So, the knife allows humanity with more leisure. Is this good or bad? How does humanity use that leisure? Does the majority use that leisure for bad things like getting drunk and committing sexual sin? Or does the majority of people use it for good to consider their purpose in life or to pursue wisdom with that new-found leisure? It depends. So, we can’t say the knife is good or that the knife is evil on an individual level or a societal level. It’s all about how people choose to use the knife and how people choose to use the associated leisure that comes with the knife. The knife doesn’t essentially belong to the good. The knife also doesn’t essentially belong to the evil. This is what would make it “neutral”

[@JakubFerenc1911]

@@peterh.636 The argument I am following goes further than that. You are using social constructivist argument that what matters is purely the human use of the artifacts. The issue is that human do not choose freely, but their choices are co-constructed by the artifact. Artifact is not a passive blob of material, but actively forces us to act certain way. Our will and our moral choices are not free, nor purely our own, but co-constructed with the artifact. Your argument is based on human will, and human will being self-contained not co-determined by external artifacts. Artifact may will for you, as it were. Also it is a conceptual error to argue that: since it essentially does not belong to A or B, it is therefore C. No, it is both A, B. That is not neutral, but non-neutral.

[@peterh.636]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, homie. I appreciate it 👍

[@k.l.9334]

This guy is a joke. He has philosophical knowledge on the Level of 5 year old. Read Heidegger and talk again.

[@bethmcmullan7686]

And yet he’s the academic on screen and you’re in the comments. And your comments are always negative.

[@WhiteChocolate74]

Not an argument