Depression is increasing across all age groups, and the obvious explanation is that there is an awful lot to be depressed about. It's not surprising that young people should be more depressed about the terrible state of the world than old people.
On this basis, the obvious problem with social media is that it exposes us to more , and more accurate, information about the world than (for example) TV.
Why do we all need scientific evidence for what we can all see, with our own eyes?!?!? We are unlikely to get cast-iron evidence for the purely *negative* effects of smartphones, when they are also portals to so much more. But a respected & intelligent New York Professor dares to write what we all think, what any ordinary thinking person can see with their own eyes, that the younger generation are withdrawing from many different forms of social contact, and basically developing self-inflicted autism, aided and assisted by their phones as far as I can see, and people dare criticize him for speaking truth to power?? As a mother of 2 teenage daughters, I am not sitting around waiting for "evidence", I am gonna try to protect my daughters... of course~!!
I really loved this post, and broadly agree with the general points. But I'm a bit confused: you have made a good case here and elsewhere for beginning with the normative question, “What kind of society do we want?" (Point 5 above). But then soon after you stress the importance of beginning with the ontological "what" questions, and along with that, descriptive questions. Obviously, in order to envision the society we want and what should be part of that, we still rely to some extent upon existing empirical understanding of what we know about X and Y, and what seems to help or harm in Z situations to the best of our knowledge (consolidating knowledge rather than adding more and more dubious "evidence"). Perhaps this is just our intuitions and lay knowledge, but ideally more than this. So, this may be a stupid question, but: are you prioritizing starting with Point 5 immediately including policies; or making a better stab at Point 2 via proper ontology and description before we jump to 5? I realize they are not mutually exclusive, but presumably one must still take priority.
Also: have you seen Gabriel Abend's paper "Making Things Possible"? Some of what you're saying here reminds me of the rationale behind that paper, which is that we would do better to lay off all the ambitious causal inference and start with the more basic question of which things make which other things possible.
You've hit the nail on the head here. This was going to be the epigraph for the post, might use it another time:
[Science] presumes that the world is not as it should be and that it can be changed. Such hypotheses present problems.
Ontology is concerned with problems of the way the world is, deontology with the way it should be, and methodology with the means of changing it. These problems are intertwined. We cannot know that the world is not as it should be without knowing how it is, nor can we know that the world is as it is without knowing how it should be. We cannot know that the world is not as it should be without knowing that it can be changed, nor can we know that it can be changed without knowing how it is.
It follows, then, that there can be no ontology without deontology, no deontology without ontology and methodology, and no methodology without ontology and deontology.
(From Vilem Flusser’s essay Beyond Machines, published in Gestures.)
In my social milieu, it's pretty much pure methodology. So at the margin, we need both more ontology and more deontology.
I think Abend develops this further in his book Words and Distinctions (which I still need to read beyond the introduction) as part of a general turn back toward ontological and normative questions, which is why I thought you might appreciate him.
My impression is that you are using "ontology" in a very broad sense that includes empirical (descriptive) scientific research about "the way the world is" - not only armchair philosophical reflection, metaphysics and conceptual analysis - where these work in tandem to flesh out ontological questions. But perhaps I am misunderstanding. Anyway, that Flusser passage is a great reframe. I checked out Beyond Machines for context and there are many other amazing passages there - I had no idea there was better version of Snow's Two Cultures!
Depression is increasing across all age groups, and the obvious explanation is that there is an awful lot to be depressed about. It's not surprising that young people should be more depressed about the terrible state of the world than old people.
On this basis, the obvious problem with social media is that it exposes us to more , and more accurate, information about the world than (for example) TV.
Perfunctory Google search suggests your first clause is false?
And your proposed mechanism here would be that the world has been getting progressively worse and therefore more depressing starting in…2012?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2022/05/31/reducing-the-economic-burden-of-unmet-mental-health-needs/
postman was right
evergreen comment
https://kevinmunger.substack.com/p/its-about-time
also killer article
i deadass almost commented "mcluhan was right" or "trow was right" but postman was catchiest
Hadn't read the trow article -- thanks for the rec
hell yea, i hope you get something out of it
Why do we all need scientific evidence for what we can all see, with our own eyes?!?!? We are unlikely to get cast-iron evidence for the purely *negative* effects of smartphones, when they are also portals to so much more. But a respected & intelligent New York Professor dares to write what we all think, what any ordinary thinking person can see with their own eyes, that the younger generation are withdrawing from many different forms of social contact, and basically developing self-inflicted autism, aided and assisted by their phones as far as I can see, and people dare criticize him for speaking truth to power?? As a mother of 2 teenage daughters, I am not sitting around waiting for "evidence", I am gonna try to protect my daughters... of course~!!
I really loved this post, and broadly agree with the general points. But I'm a bit confused: you have made a good case here and elsewhere for beginning with the normative question, “What kind of society do we want?" (Point 5 above). But then soon after you stress the importance of beginning with the ontological "what" questions, and along with that, descriptive questions. Obviously, in order to envision the society we want and what should be part of that, we still rely to some extent upon existing empirical understanding of what we know about X and Y, and what seems to help or harm in Z situations to the best of our knowledge (consolidating knowledge rather than adding more and more dubious "evidence"). Perhaps this is just our intuitions and lay knowledge, but ideally more than this. So, this may be a stupid question, but: are you prioritizing starting with Point 5 immediately including policies; or making a better stab at Point 2 via proper ontology and description before we jump to 5? I realize they are not mutually exclusive, but presumably one must still take priority.
Also: have you seen Gabriel Abend's paper "Making Things Possible"? Some of what you're saying here reminds me of the rationale behind that paper, which is that we would do better to lay off all the ambitious causal inference and start with the more basic question of which things make which other things possible.
Thanks for all the great work!
You've hit the nail on the head here. This was going to be the epigraph for the post, might use it another time:
[Science] presumes that the world is not as it should be and that it can be changed. Such hypotheses present problems.
Ontology is concerned with problems of the way the world is, deontology with the way it should be, and methodology with the means of changing it. These problems are intertwined. We cannot know that the world is not as it should be without knowing how it is, nor can we know that the world is as it is without knowing how it should be. We cannot know that the world is not as it should be without knowing that it can be changed, nor can we know that it can be changed without knowing how it is.
It follows, then, that there can be no ontology without deontology, no deontology without ontology and methodology, and no methodology without ontology and deontology.
(From Vilem Flusser’s essay Beyond Machines, published in Gestures.)
In my social milieu, it's pretty much pure methodology. So at the margin, we need both more ontology and more deontology.
(haven't read the Abend piece, will check it out)
I think Abend develops this further in his book Words and Distinctions (which I still need to read beyond the introduction) as part of a general turn back toward ontological and normative questions, which is why I thought you might appreciate him.
My impression is that you are using "ontology" in a very broad sense that includes empirical (descriptive) scientific research about "the way the world is" - not only armchair philosophical reflection, metaphysics and conceptual analysis - where these work in tandem to flesh out ontological questions. But perhaps I am misunderstanding. Anyway, that Flusser passage is a great reframe. I checked out Beyond Machines for context and there are many other amazing passages there - I had no idea there was better version of Snow's Two Cultures!