The SEIS for the future, instead of being a global community, could become a vast and fragmented network of isolated individuals interact with their data and not with people. We are therefore faced a double-edged sword which speaks and the Magisterium of the Church for some decades. Moreover, it is the reflection at this point, whether it is possible to really consider this process, called communication as a process of exchange or share, as originally had been identified, and that today prevail in human relations focused on meeting needs , ie focusing on end.
In this sense, it should go to Habermas, to clarify that definitely the problem of modernity has not been resolved as it has been approached from the technical reason, namely that man has favored joint means to the end control the external environment, taking this as a result of technical development, unlike what would happen if address the problem of modernity from the practical reason, which would result in the understanding of the subject, which is exactly what we think is missing in this moment in history.
With this we state that according to Habermas reflection of solving the problem of modernity would be meaningless through practical reason and with this, through practical communication would be illocutionary. In this sense, Habermas, quite rightly suggests that postmodernism would be the rescue of reason and communicative action.
By distinguishing between reflective thinking and thinking calculator, you can clearly conclude that what we need as "world modern "is to use a reflective thinking, a thinking sense, where man first of all worry about thinking itself. Therefore we can say that what happens with modernity is that we are in the flight of thought, ie we are not thinking reflectively. Therefore we believe that what we need, is a communication oriented to understanding, understanding, true communication between subjects, but this one aspect of reality would not be sufficient if there were no technical knowledge, more targeted control and domination, so we agree with Habermas and his idea of \u200b\u200bfinding a balance between the interests of knowledge technical and interests of the interaction, ie moving in the technical domains (relationship between) and the practical (communicative subject-subject)
For all the above, we can say that although we consider that the means of human communication that have evolved are now in a favorable way for direct human relations, warm and natural, may, notwithstanding the above, change of purpose, ie, moving from being mere sources of information to be true links between individuals, affective, emotional and experiential general to share, so maybe this way, producing a universal level change about modernity and inclusiveness which we live and we have failed to address in an integrated way.
In this sense, it should go to Habermas, to clarify that definitely the problem of modernity has not been resolved as it has been approached from the technical reason, namely that man has favored joint means to the end control the external environment, taking this as a result of technical development, unlike what would happen if address the problem of modernity from the practical reason, which would result in the understanding of the subject, which is exactly what we think is missing in this moment in history.
With this we state that according to Habermas reflection of solving the problem of modernity would be meaningless through practical reason and with this, through practical communication would be illocutionary. In this sense, Habermas, quite rightly suggests that postmodernism would be the rescue of reason and communicative action.
By distinguishing between reflective thinking and thinking calculator, you can clearly conclude that what we need as "world modern "is to use a reflective thinking, a thinking sense, where man first of all worry about thinking itself. Therefore we can say that what happens with modernity is that we are in the flight of thought, ie we are not thinking reflectively. Therefore we believe that what we need, is a communication oriented to understanding, understanding, true communication between subjects, but this one aspect of reality would not be sufficient if there were no technical knowledge, more targeted control and domination, so we agree with Habermas and his idea of \u200b\u200bfinding a balance between the interests of knowledge technical and interests of the interaction, ie moving in the technical domains (relationship between) and the practical (communicative subject-subject)
For all the above, we can say that although we consider that the means of human communication that have evolved are now in a favorable way for direct human relations, warm and natural, may, notwithstanding the above, change of purpose, ie, moving from being mere sources of information to be true links between individuals, affective, emotional and experiential general to share, so maybe this way, producing a universal level change about modernity and inclusiveness which we live and we have failed to address in an integrated way.
0 comments:
Post a Comment