One fundamental difference between Socrates and RMS:
Socrates, constantly in search of truth, never found it. Plato quotes him as saying "In the end, I know nothing." RMS, on the other hand, does not suffer from this problem.
Last point: Very sound philosophy? He had no real philosophy, he just questioned things alot. There's a big difference. Besides, what he did say was far from 'sound' and 'moral.' Refer to Aristophanese and Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is a great example of the philosopher who hates the modern.
I do not share your faith in science. Science is limited by the physical senses. The big questions cannot be answered by any measurement, nor calculation. Science, in fact, has concentrated since Darwin on showing man to be nothing more than animal. What good is fine literature to an animal, who is merely farther along the evolutionary chain. Science cannot explain the philosopher!
The original Mona Lisa isn't going anywhere, but it's the question of post-modernism, why travel thousands of miles to see the real thing when you can go to your computer and see a representation, or buy a cheap print? To the art lover, this is kind of thinking is repulsive.
It really does have a lot to do with democracy, not the institutions of government, but the democratic man. Really, read Tocqueville... the definitive observer of American democracy.
"Turning back the clock" has become a sin in the modern world, but forgetting history is by far the greater sin. I assure you that Rousseau was not 'transcendental' in any way. Simply because they are 'old' does not mean they have no application to life as we now know it. Many have accused our librarian friend of being arrogant. But assuming that everything modern is better than that of the past is arrogant too.
Categorizing and examining roses are the signs of the time. You forgot to mention, roses are also very beautiful, and beauty is something that cannot be scientifically calculated.
To the 'elitist monopolization' comment. It has nothing to do with monopolization. I'm all in favor of having a print copy of all the great works of literature in every library. Just not digitized. I know this is hard to understand, but consider the Mona Lisa as a.jpeg.
To the 'quantity over quality' argument: It is a fact that all (this is an exaggeration in only the most slightest sense) of products today are made with less skill, and less care, than those of the past. In is the natural tendency of democracy (see the diffinitive Toqueville Democracy in America.
The best place to refer to information on the quality of literature of the past and the present is a reputable literature professor. Ask him to name a work of modern (particularly American) literature that comes even close to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina or Shakespeare. (I have no links because, obviously I would much rather read works of intelligence in print). Then go to your local library, check out a copy of The Brothers Karamazov and a copy of The Firm and compare.
To your last point, enlightenment is not all its cracked up to be (see Rousseau First Discourse
I am not concerned with 'information.' Put reference materials, text books, technical manuals, out on the 'net and I will applaud. When people start reading digital Shakespeare... that's the tragedy.
First, thanks for the complement. I must say I've enjoyed it too. Just a few points:
You really should read Marx. I'm not a socialist either, but Marx would not have been happy with the way his philosophy was used. I promise it's good stuff, he actually liked capitalism, believe it or not.
I'm not so sure that the 'bad' authors of the past were as bad as they are today. Also, I noticed that you suggested looking AWAY from America to find good literature (although it even it is not 'great' as in the past I would argue, but that's mostly opinion). I must agree that that is where we must look. However, what happense when American culture dominates the world. Everywhere is imitating America, and America has no great art to speak of. There are many reasons for this, Toqueville writes of some. Perhaps you should be open to the idea that liberal democracy along with capitalism may have more faults than are commonly admitted. Democracy and capitalism may be the best we have, but nothing is without room for improvement. There are many, many philosophers that you could read who would shed light on this.
One last, rather deeper point on physical pain and suffering. The reason 'great' literature is 'great' is because it is focused on the 'big' questions, Heidegger called it 'being' but you can also say the soul. When the soul disappears, so does the question "what is man" for we are no different from the animals. Authors of the past mastered the skill of exploring the human soul FAR better than contemporary writers.
1st question/point response: I adhere to the school of thought that the harder it is to acomplish, the more gratifying (and virtuous) it is. As anachronistic as this may sound, I think it is true and would take me a considerable amount of time to explain why (refer to Alexsander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address of 1978 for some insight into this idea).
2nd question/point: Many modern philosophers are anti-technology (or are at least wary) because of its alienation from human input. Example: In the past there was one cobbler making his own shoes, very distinct and in some ways artful. Now we have one person pulling a lever that cuts uniform peices of the shoe. Much of the *humanity* is taken away when technology is introduced. Relating this to the current discussion is somewhat an abstraction, but still applies I think.
3rd point: You may have misunderstood me here. By authenticity I don't mean accuracy, which may be important too. By authenticity I refer to it containing more of the *human* element. On/. most everyone is very technically minded. To a technical person, nothing makes more sense than to make something more efficient and more accessable. For an art-lover, however, nothing is more destructive! I would far rather travel long distances to see a genuine da Vinci, or hear Wagner played by a fine German symphany, than to download a digital representation off the Internet. That is the authenticity I refer to. ( I think this may address teh 4th point too)
The final point reflects my concern over the idea of "searchable" text. Literature or intellectual non-fiction was never meant to be "searchable" but read in its entirity. While I know that the opportunity would be there to read in the entirity, the tendency would be to merely grep through to pull something out of context.
Before we continue this discussion, let me say that I don't see any problem with digitizing reference materials, it makes sense. My concern centers around works of literature and the like.
As far as Mr. Billington is concerned, I would venture to say his resume is quite more impressive than either of ours . But be that as it may...
The optimism you express is straight from Marx (no attack, I assure you, a compliment if anything). When capitalism and technology has produced enough wealth, then everyone will be freed up to pursue art, etc. Unfortunately, the great wealth of modern American has not produced this affect. In fact, it has merely continued to produce the desire for more wealth, and more mass produced goods. It is a case of quantity over quality.
In fact, consider the significant decline in the quality of literature in the modern era. You would assume that with more wealth, literature would be better. This seemingly is not true. The more comfortable the life style, the less moving and interesting the culture. This has been documented by many philosophers (see Baudrillard's America, Paul Cantor's paper Tocqueville and Vegas, and perhaps most important, anything by Alesandr Solzhenitsyn).
Ceeding your point, even if we have high quality books in the future, what about the quality of the literature itself. What about when everything but technical manuals are seen as trival? What does it matter if I have a library full of leather-bound books, but nothing worthwhile is being created to add to my library? Tolstoy is dead and Grisham has killed him!
This is perhaps getting somewhat off our main argument, but is connected. However, what we seem to be saying is that you have much more faith in the human ability to come out of it's decadent materialism.
I agree that the printing press was technology, and in much the same way it took away some of the history and authenticity for the hand-printed text. That doesn't mean we must repeat this on a greater scale. Essentially, technological advances developed by man ironically succeed in taking much of the humanity out of our achievements (Marx).
To address your 'improvements' point. Greater efficiency does not add anything essentially better to literature. To restate: simplification is not always an improvement. Again, some of these developments may be good for reference materials, but not for works of literature, nor even good non-fiction (actually, you might consider the point that the easier research becomes, the less rewarding it is also). There is just something sick about reading philosophy in digital form.
I do appreciate your love for books! But I can't help but think you are underestemating the power of mass consumerism. Do you really think anyone will take the time to carefully craft a marvellously bounded work when all the money is in producing digitized, hastily produced mediocrity? I certainly hope you are right! Perhaps I am overly pessimistic. But, you must admit, that the popular trend is moving quickly away from people such as ourselves and Mr. Billington.
Ignoring your personal attacks, I am struck by your unwavering faith in technology. It is a symptom of the post-modern society to believe that technology will solve all our problems. Printed books are just an antiquity that will be replaced as soon as the technology is good enough. You are probably right that this will happen, but I cannot agree that this is good. Just because they are old and low-tech does not automatically deprive them of worth. In fact, these very characteristics give them MORE worth than some kind of digital book that attempt to mimic REAL books. Please explain to me how digitizing paper books can in any way improve upon the way they already are. Your immediate response would probably be "because they are made more available to everyone." I have already wrote of my reservations on this argument. I would be interested to see any new points.
Saying that the basic mission of the library is to share information is misleading. In fact, libraries were established to be a kind of 'preservation society' and a meeting place for intellectuals. And while/. provides a forum for discussion, there is no actual 'social interaction' to speak of.
As far as making information accessable to all, Billington inferred that he would, in fact, place many reference items on the website (maps, recordings, etc.). The issue is digitizing full books.
If books are distributed in 'searchable' format, why would anyone read the entire books? The great majority of people would simply search for a few keywords and pull from context instead of actually READING the books.
Distributing reference material is one thing. When the puropse of the literature is to distribute facts, there truly is no better way than the Internet. However, Billington's desire to preserve the "presumption of reverence" for books is something that should be admired.
In fact, this "presumption of reverence" idea is what prompted the "Borg-like" comment. The End of History theme (from Kojeve, Heidegger, et. al. and poplularized by Francis Fukyama) shows that in the modern movement, nothing is sacred and everything that was formerly respected is being vulgarized. Billington is now a member of the counterculture, one of those who resist this movement.
I am obviously in the minority here, but I can't help but agree with our librarian friend. As a lover of books I can't help but be concerned over 'digitization.' Mr. Billington is resisting the seemingly overwhelming push towards a society of technology. What we are in danger of doing is exactly what we have accused others of for so long: repressing valid dissent. 'Digitizing' books is just one more step towards a world where you never have to leave your house, or even whatever room you access the internet from. If the internet is meant to be a 'community' it is a community unlike any other in history (not necessarily a good thing). In fact, it is hard to call millions of isolated individuals a community at all. Preserving books is one thing. I can't see any reason why this should not be done. But making the printed word obsolete would be a tragedy. So what if we have 'search' capabilities! This merely adds to the 'hastiness' of the world. I would much rather preserve the tradition and authenticity of literature than have it consumed by the 'Borg-like' force of technology. Mr. Billington should be congratulated for doing his job well against the popular wave of our times. Call him reactionary if you will, but that can often be great praise.
Slashdot Mirror
Socrates, constantly in search of truth, never found it. Plato quotes him as saying "In the end, I know nothing." RMS, on the other hand, does not suffer from this problem.
Last point: Very sound philosophy? He had no real philosophy, he just questioned things alot. There's a big difference. Besides, what he did say was far from 'sound' and 'moral.' Refer to Aristophanese and Nietzsche.
Obviously, this means man synonymous with humanity. Feminist criticisms aside, this is a proper philosophic term to refer to the species as a whole.
I do not share your faith in science. Science is limited by the physical senses. The big questions cannot be answered by any measurement, nor calculation. Science, in fact, has concentrated since Darwin on showing man to be nothing more than animal. What good is fine literature to an animal, who is merely farther along the evolutionary chain. Science cannot explain the philosopher!
It really does have a lot to do with democracy, not the institutions of government, but the democratic man. Really, read Tocqueville ... the definitive observer of American democracy.
"Turning back the clock" has become a sin in the modern world, but forgetting history is by far the greater sin. I assure you that Rousseau was not 'transcendental' in any way. Simply because they are 'old' does not mean they have no application to life as we now know it. Many have accused our librarian friend of being arrogant. But assuming that everything modern is better than that of the past is arrogant too.
Categorizing and examining roses are the signs of the time. You forgot to mention, roses are also very beautiful, and beauty is something that cannot be scientifically calculated.
To the 'elitist monopolization' comment. It has nothing to do with monopolization. I'm all in favor of having a print copy of all the great works of literature in every library. Just not digitized. I know this is hard to understand, but consider the Mona Lisa as a .jpeg.
To the 'quantity over quality' argument: It is a fact that all (this is an exaggeration in only the most slightest sense) of products today are made with less skill, and less care, than those of the past. In is the natural tendency of democracy (see the diffinitive Toqueville Democracy in America.
The best place to refer to information on the quality of literature of the past and the present is a reputable literature professor. Ask him to name a work of modern (particularly American) literature that comes even close to Tolstoy's Anna Karenina or Shakespeare. (I have no links because, obviously I would much rather read works of intelligence in print). Then go to your local library, check out a copy of The Brothers Karamazov and a copy of The Firm and compare.
To your last point, enlightenment is not all its cracked up to be (see Rousseau First Discourse
I am not concerned with 'information.' Put reference materials, text books, technical manuals, out on the 'net and I will applaud. When people start reading digital Shakespeare ... that's the tragedy.
You really should read Marx. I'm not a socialist either, but Marx would not have been happy with the way his philosophy was used. I promise it's good stuff, he actually liked capitalism, believe it or not.
I'm not so sure that the 'bad' authors of the past were as bad as they are today. Also, I noticed that you suggested looking AWAY from America to find good literature (although it even it is not 'great' as in the past I would argue, but that's mostly opinion). I must agree that that is where we must look. However, what happense when American culture dominates the world. Everywhere is imitating America, and America has no great art to speak of. There are many reasons for this, Toqueville writes of some. Perhaps you should be open to the idea that liberal democracy along with capitalism may have more faults than are commonly admitted. Democracy and capitalism may be the best we have, but nothing is without room for improvement. There are many, many philosophers that you could read who would shed light on this.
One last, rather deeper point on physical pain and suffering. The reason 'great' literature is 'great' is because it is focused on the 'big' questions, Heidegger called it 'being' but you can also say the soul. When the soul disappears, so does the question "what is man" for we are no different from the animals. Authors of the past mastered the skill of exploring the human soul FAR better than contemporary writers.
2nd question/point: Many modern philosophers are anti-technology (or are at least wary) because of its alienation from human input. Example: In the past there was one cobbler making his own shoes, very distinct and in some ways artful. Now we have one person pulling a lever that cuts uniform peices of the shoe. Much of the *humanity* is taken away when technology is introduced. Relating this to the current discussion is somewhat an abstraction, but still applies I think.
3rd point: You may have misunderstood me here. By authenticity I don't mean accuracy, which may be important too. By authenticity I refer to it containing more of the *human* element. On /. most everyone is very technically minded. To a technical person, nothing makes more sense than to make something more efficient and more accessable. For an art-lover, however, nothing is more destructive! I would far rather travel long distances to see a genuine da Vinci, or hear Wagner played by a fine German symphany, than to download a digital representation off the Internet. That is the authenticity I refer to. ( I think this may address teh 4th point too)
The final point reflects my concern over the idea of "searchable" text. Literature or intellectual non-fiction was never meant to be "searchable" but read in its entirity. While I know that the opportunity would be there to read in the entirity, the tendency would be to merely grep through to pull something out of context.
Before we continue this discussion, let me say that I don't see any problem with digitizing reference materials, it makes sense. My concern centers around works of literature and the like.
The optimism you express is straight from Marx (no attack, I assure you, a compliment if anything). When capitalism and technology has produced enough wealth, then everyone will be freed up to pursue art, etc. Unfortunately, the great wealth of modern American has not produced this affect. In fact, it has merely continued to produce the desire for more wealth, and more mass produced goods. It is a case of quantity over quality.
In fact, consider the significant decline in the quality of literature in the modern era. You would assume that with more wealth, literature would be better. This seemingly is not true. The more comfortable the life style, the less moving and interesting the culture. This has been documented by many philosophers (see Baudrillard's America, Paul Cantor's paper Tocqueville and Vegas, and perhaps most important, anything by Alesandr Solzhenitsyn).
Ceeding your point, even if we have high quality books in the future, what about the quality of the literature itself. What about when everything but technical manuals are seen as trival? What does it matter if I have a library full of leather-bound books, but nothing worthwhile is being created to add to my library? Tolstoy is dead and Grisham has killed him!
This is perhaps getting somewhat off our main argument, but is connected. However, what we seem to be saying is that you have much more faith in the human ability to come out of it's decadent materialism.
To address your 'improvements' point. Greater efficiency does not add anything essentially better to literature. To restate: simplification is not always an improvement. Again, some of these developments may be good for reference materials, but not for works of literature, nor even good non-fiction (actually, you might consider the point that the easier research becomes, the less rewarding it is also). There is just something sick about reading philosophy in digital form.
you've probably never 'met' anyone, only a few at best. Talking to someone over instant messenger is far different than face to face interaction.
I do appreciate your love for books! But I can't help but think you are underestemating the power of mass consumerism. Do you really think anyone will take the time to carefully craft a marvellously bounded work when all the money is in producing digitized, hastily produced mediocrity? I certainly hope you are right! Perhaps I am overly pessimistic. But, you must admit, that the popular trend is moving quickly away from people such as ourselves and Mr. Billington.
Ignoring your personal attacks, I am struck by your unwavering faith in technology. It is a symptom of the post-modern society to believe that technology will solve all our problems. Printed books are just an antiquity that will be replaced as soon as the technology is good enough. You are probably right that this will happen, but I cannot agree that this is good. Just because they are old and low-tech does not automatically deprive them of worth. In fact, these very characteristics give them MORE worth than some kind of digital book that attempt to mimic REAL books. Please explain to me how digitizing paper books can in any way improve upon the way they already are. Your immediate response would probably be "because they are made more available to everyone." I have already wrote of my reservations on this argument. I would be interested to see any new points.
As far as making information accessable to all, Billington inferred that he would, in fact, place many reference items on the website (maps, recordings, etc.). The issue is digitizing full books.
If books are distributed in 'searchable' format, why would anyone read the entire books? The great majority of people would simply search for a few keywords and pull from context instead of actually READING the books.
Distributing reference material is one thing. When the puropse of the literature is to distribute facts, there truly is no better way than the Internet. However, Billington's desire to preserve the "presumption of reverence" for books is something that should be admired.
In fact, this "presumption of reverence" idea is what prompted the "Borg-like" comment. The End of History theme (from Kojeve, Heidegger, et. al. and poplularized by Francis Fukyama) shows that in the modern movement, nothing is sacred and everything that was formerly respected is being vulgarized. Billington is now a member of the counterculture, one of those who resist this movement.
I am obviously in the minority here, but I can't help but agree with our librarian friend. As a lover of books I can't help but be concerned over 'digitization.' Mr. Billington is resisting the seemingly overwhelming push towards a society of technology. What we are in danger of doing is exactly what we have accused others of for so long: repressing valid dissent. 'Digitizing' books is just one more step towards a world where you never have to leave your house, or even whatever room you access the internet from. If the internet is meant to be a 'community' it is a community unlike any other in history (not necessarily a good thing). In fact, it is hard to call millions of isolated individuals a community at all. Preserving books is one thing. I can't see any reason why this should not be done. But making the printed word obsolete would be a tragedy. So what if we have 'search' capabilities! This merely adds to the 'hastiness' of the world. I would much rather preserve the tradition and authenticity of literature than have it consumed by the 'Borg-like' force of technology. Mr. Billington should be congratulated for doing his job well against the popular wave of our times. Call him reactionary if you will, but that can often be great praise.