Part One of Two In The Conquest of Space and the Nature of Man Arendt explores the relationship between modern science and the stature of man in which she recalls popular advancements in science of the last few decades. She begins her essay by asking the question whether man’s conquest of space increased or diminished his stature. Arendt addresses, and challenges the layman’s, and humanist to judge what scientist are doing because it concerns man which indicates that her essay is primarily pitched towards the general public in hopes to create awareness of the inevitable dangers modern science will cause the stature of man if it continues to progress. The arguments in this piece appears to both alter the conduct in which we allow modern science to advance so far where it can destroy our stature, and also to call into question the general assumption that technology and science is always beneficiary.
Arendt explains that modern science was able to emancipate itself from all such anthropocentric, because scientist’s harbor non-anthropocentric beliefs. She suggests that if man had instead reflected upon nature or human sensory than modern science would not progressed like it has. Instead the dangers in the progression of modern science primarily include its aim to discover what lies behind the natural phenomena, and behind appearance. The danger lies in the pursuit science takes in finding the abstract/imaginable because it “defies description of human language” in which can no longer be described. She explains that our ideas in human reason, and thinking is earthbound like any other part of our body, and argues that modern science reaches its most baffling achievements by abstracting from the very same terrestrial conditions by appealing to a power of imagination, and lifts the human mind out of the “gravitation field”.
Arendt demonstrates another danger in modern science including the discoveries, and technological advancements during the conquest of space that led to the invention of the most murderous gadgets, and claims “Ideals were lost when scientist discovered that there is nothing indivisible in matter..., and that a chance seems to rule supreme wherever this “true reality”. In reference to the scientific revolution in the splitting of the atom, and the scientist’s carelessness for the destructive potentialities, she argues that it demonstrated the scientist lack of concern for the survival of the human race on earth, or survival of the planet itself, and again illuminates the contrast between the scientist, and layman’s not only intellectually but morally, and indirectly exemplifies the deterring relationship of man as science continues to advance. Arendt’s central argument that modern science destroys the stature of man is most evident in the final three pages where she claims that the argument against the “conquest of space” could be raised only if they showed that the whole enterprise might be self defeating, Arendt incorporates Heisenberg’s discovery of uncertainty principle to demonstrate that “the modern search for true reality behind mere appearances which has brought the world in the atomic revolution, had led into a situation in the sciences in which man had lost the very objectivity of the natural world, so that man in his hunt for objective reality suddenly discovered that he always confronts himself alone”. Arendt explains that every progress of science in that last decades had brought and inevitable avalanche of “fabulous instruments, and ingenious machinery” which she argues makes it less likely everyday that a man will encounter anything in the world that is not man-made, thus “he himself in a different disguise”. The example of the Astronaut is symbolic of Heisenberg’s man who will be less likely to ever meet anything but he, and the more he wished to eliminate anthropocentric considerations from his encounter with the non-human world around him. In the end Arendt concludes that “man could only get lost in the immensity of the universe, for the only true Archimedean point would be the absolute void behind the universe”, and if the conquest of space should ever reach this stage, the stature of man would be destroyed. The relationship between the Layman’s and the scientist’s which illuminates the difference in intellect and prospective can be seen as a metaphor for the damaging relationship between modern science and the stature of man, because as one progresses (science/scientist) the other deteriorates (man/layman).
I get really hung up on these last philosophical arguments, about earthly science and humanistic concerns. When Arendt makes the argument that we ought to shift and consider humanistic issues rather than scientific issues I have to wonder how she, and they, are able to make this move. To me, science is the human question, its what humans are capable of doing and answering, whereas philosophical questions we are largely incapable of answering. To me, it is as if she were describing the real function of a bird to be to swim, even though the bird is designed to fly, capable of flying, and has flown since the beginning of bird.
Part One of Two
ReplyDeleteIn The Conquest of Space and the Nature of Man Arendt explores the relationship between modern science and the stature of man in which she recalls popular advancements in science of the last few decades. She begins her essay by asking the question whether man’s conquest of space increased or diminished his stature. Arendt addresses, and challenges the layman’s, and humanist to judge what scientist are doing because it concerns man which indicates that her essay is primarily pitched towards the general public in hopes to create awareness of the inevitable dangers modern science will cause the stature of man if it continues to progress. The arguments in this piece appears to both alter the conduct in which we allow modern science to advance so far where it can destroy our stature, and also to call into question the general assumption that technology and science is always beneficiary.
Arendt explains that modern science was able to emancipate itself from all such anthropocentric, because scientist’s harbor non-anthropocentric beliefs. She suggests that if man had instead reflected upon nature or human sensory than modern science would not progressed like it has. Instead the dangers in the progression of modern science primarily include its aim to discover what lies behind the natural phenomena, and behind appearance. The danger lies in the pursuit science takes in finding the abstract/imaginable because it “defies description of human language” in which can no longer be described. She explains that our ideas in human reason, and thinking is earthbound like any other part of our body, and argues that modern science reaches its most baffling achievements by abstracting from the very same terrestrial conditions by appealing to a power of imagination, and lifts the human mind out of the “gravitation field”.
by Jorge Garrido
Part Two
ReplyDeleteArendt demonstrates another danger in modern science including the discoveries, and technological advancements during the conquest of space that led to the invention of the most murderous gadgets, and claims “Ideals were lost when scientist discovered that there is nothing indivisible in matter..., and that a chance seems to rule supreme wherever this “true reality”. In reference to the scientific revolution in the splitting of the atom, and the scientist’s carelessness for the destructive potentialities, she argues that it demonstrated the scientist lack of concern for the survival of the human race on earth, or survival of the planet itself, and again illuminates the contrast between the scientist, and layman’s not only intellectually but morally, and indirectly exemplifies the deterring relationship of man as science continues to advance.
Arendt’s central argument that modern science destroys the stature of man is most evident in the final three pages where she claims that the argument against the “conquest of space” could be raised only if they showed that the whole enterprise might be self defeating, Arendt incorporates Heisenberg’s discovery of uncertainty principle to demonstrate that “the modern search for true reality behind mere appearances which has brought the world in the atomic revolution, had led into a situation in the sciences in which man had lost the very objectivity of the natural world, so that man in his hunt for objective reality suddenly discovered that he always confronts himself alone”. Arendt explains that every progress of science in that last decades had brought and inevitable avalanche of “fabulous instruments, and ingenious machinery” which she argues makes it less likely everyday that a man will encounter anything in the world that is not man-made, thus “he himself in a different disguise”. The example of the Astronaut is symbolic of Heisenberg’s man who will be less likely to ever meet anything but he, and the more he wished to eliminate anthropocentric considerations from his encounter with the non-human world around him. In the end Arendt concludes that “man could only get lost in the immensity of the universe, for the only true Archimedean point would be the absolute void behind the universe”, and if the conquest of space should ever reach this stage, the stature of man would be destroyed. The relationship between the Layman’s and the scientist’s which illuminates the difference in intellect and prospective can be seen as a metaphor for the damaging relationship between modern science and the stature of man, because as one progresses (science/scientist) the other deteriorates (man/layman).
BY Jorge Garrido Jr
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI get really hung up on these last philosophical arguments, about earthly science and humanistic concerns. When Arendt makes the argument that we ought to shift and consider humanistic issues rather than scientific issues I have to wonder how she, and they, are able to make this move. To me, science is the human question, its what humans are capable of doing and answering, whereas philosophical questions we are largely incapable of answering. To me, it is as if she were describing the real function of a bird to be to swim, even though the bird is designed to fly, capable of flying, and has flown since the beginning of bird.
ReplyDelete