Talk:Albert Borgmann

.

Added U Montana info and noted forthcoming book. Probably doesn't meet style guide. Sorry. Dieziege 01:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.-- Jreferee 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy or Theology?

Recent edits by 70.88.169.233 have shifted the emphasis from philosophy to theology, especially in the discussion of Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life. I am not comfortable with this shift, but I intend to check my copy before making further edits. --RichardVeryard (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant no disrepect in my edits(70.88.169.233). However, I see Borgmann following a path similiar to that of Jacques Ellul the difference between the two appears to be that Borgmann perfers the Roman Catholic faith while Ellul was influenced by Barth Protestantism. All the references RichardVeryard has put forth I accept. Indeed I am aware that Herbert Dreyfus of Berkeley and Sean Kelly of Harvard both use phenomological examples from Borgmann's textbooks. However, close reading of the references made use of by RichardVeryard clearly state that Borgmann does not stay in the Heidegger tradition. Borgmann begins with phenomonological insights that may be classified as Heidegger but his final agenda seems to be salvation. Qualitynotquantity (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger

Recent edits by 70.88.169.233 describe Borgmann as "moving away" from Heidegger, and emphasize the differences between Heidegger and Borgmann. I think this is misleading. See for example the following three quotes. --RichardVeryard (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE 1:

"Albert Borgmann ... has given us the best account of this aspect of Heidegger's thinking. Rather than doing an exegesis of Heidegger's texts, Borgmann does just what Heidegger wants his readers to do. He follows Heidegger on his path of thought, which always means finding the phenomena about which Heidegger is thinking." Dreyfus, Hubert (1997), Heidegger and Borgmann on How to Affirm Technology, retrieved 2009-08-22

A RESPONSE: I agree completely with this paper and I am a great admirer of Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Spinosa. I am pleased that RichardVeryard put forth this paper. So let's read closely the last sentence of the very first paragraph, of this paper. "We hope we can show that Heidegger suggests a more coherent and credible answer than Borgmann's." This is very clear and straightforward. They disagree with Borgmann. However they do so with grace and style.

QUOTE 2:

"Albert Borgmann follows the general project by Heidegger to see how technology has harmful effects on humanity and to determine how it can be reformed. Borgmann shares Heidegger’s view that modern technology is starkly different from premodern technology in its pattern of disclosing the world to human beings. Borgmann agrees that a sort of ethical reform must be undertaken to limit technological ways of living from dominating the lives of individuals and to keep technology in its place. His proposal for a direction of reform first takes cues from Heidegger but then asserts the need for different tactics." Pritchett, Adrian, Borgmann’s Proposal to Reform Technology, retrieved 2009-08-22

A RESPONSE: Throughout Adrian Pritchett's article he constantly refers to Borgmann's move away from a Heideggerian understanding of technology. But he does so without maligning Borgmann. Pritchett's article is very good. In fact, one should read this article closely before agreeing or disagreeing with me. The issue for me is does Borgmann's focal practices disclose being-in-the-world. I do not think they do. They are principally designed to yoke his ideal of man to his ideal of nature. He seeks an ideal way of living with minimal intrusion of technology. His concepts are designed to form ethical/moral proposes to deal with what he calls postmodern man.

Read closely the very first paragraph of Pritchett's article. Here Pritchett tells us that Borgmann wants ethical reform. "A sort of ethical reform must be undertaken to limit technological ways of living from dominating the lives of individuals and to keep technology in its place. His proposal for a direction of reform first takes cues from Heidegger but then asserts the need for different tactics."

In Borgmann's later books these different tactics become entangled with what seems to be some form of Catholic Christianity. Qualitynotquantity (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

QUOTE 3:

"The ‘device paradigm’ advocated by Borgmann is founded in this idea of the Gestell and has led to a loss of meaning and being of things (Prins 278)" van Es, Karin (2005), The Lost Engagement? Focality and the Internet (PDF), retrieved 2010-02-11 --RichardVeryard (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A RESPONSE: This article is not of the same caliber as the previous two. Grammer and lack of a unified vision limit its productive use. It has the appearance of a high school term paper. However, even here we see that the writer has been unable to make use of one of Borgmann's signature concepts. Turn to the Conclusion and Discussion section (page 18) here the writer states clearly that Borgmann's theory is not able to hold the content that RichardVeryard wants it to. I quote, "Having examined Borgmanns theory it has been difficult to relate Internet to focality in depth because much of the criticisms from philosophers on Borgmann are focused on the problems that directly arise from his definitions. In other words, it is fairly easy to shoot holes through his theories even to the degree that the distinction between focal and nonfocal activities can not be empirically drawn back to definitions."

The question is why does this writer bother to put forth Borgmann's claims. It appears that he merely wants to have a strawman to knock down. We see him do this in the final sentence: "It would be foolish to exclaim that Internet can not be seen or mediate in focal practices." Qualitynotquantity (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

COUNTERPROPOSAL There is clearly a path from Heidegger and Borgmann. The difference of opinion here is whether to emphasize the similarities between Heidegger and Borgmann or the differences. Clearly there are questions of philosophical affiliation and alliance here, phenomenologists versus Catholics, as well as the question of tracing any shift in Borgmann's thinking over the past thirty years. There are also critiques of Borgmann by other philosophers, for example Andrew Feenberg, which contribute to an interesting and ongoing debate but cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence for Borgmann's own position on anything. However, I don't think it's appropriate to try and get a scholarly analysis into Wikipedia; all we should attempt here is to indicate the areas of interest, as neutrally as possible, and provide links for those who wish to read the source materials for themselves. RichardVeryard (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Albert Borgmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118063127/http://www.gseis.ucla.edu:80/courses/ed253a/newDK/borg.htm to http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/newDK/borg.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)