The Irony of Innovation and the Death of Communication

by Polo Guillermo

Husserl has introduced the concept of the said and the saying. These terms underscore the importance of communication amongst individuals. The said pertains to the message or thought an individual wants to express and share to another person. The saying on the other hand is the manner how this thought is expressed and interpreted. There are instances when the said and the saying are directly proportional or are intimately intertwined. The said can be clearly reflected or implied by the saying. However, there are also instances when there is a disconnect between the two aforementioned concepts. The saying can be the opposite of the intention and content of the said. This can be done either intentionally and inadvertently.

More than the technicality of the definition and correlation of the two terms, Husserl asserts that the saying is more significant than the said. The said can be thought of and imitated by anyone. The saying on the other hand is a particular and unique experience which cannot be copied by anyone. Each encounter and conversation between two individuals is distinct. Husserl therefore gives more importance and meaning with how one interacts and connects with another person. This assertion affirms our nature as relational beings. We are defined by the relationships and interactions we have with other people. It is through communication that we build these linkages.

The innovation of technology has undeniably redefined communication. The invention of telephones and cellular phones has made it more convenient and accessible for people to keep in touch with people regardless of distance and time differences. These creations were initially intended connect people and make the world seem smaller. What is rather ironic is the fact that as time passed, it caused the opposite: technology marked the death of genuine communication, an interaction defined by a face to face exchange of words and ideas. Since instant messaging has made everything easier and faster, the younger generations unfortunately resort to these medium in establishing relationships with other people.

Leisurely talks and long conversations seem passé to most people now because of technology. This culture has unfortunately affected social skills of people for the worse. People have relatively become more aloof and uneasy with personal encounters because of the continued progression and advancement of gadgets. People don't normally establish eye contact as much and engage in conversations. They would rather isolate themselves in their own worlds in cyberspace. This mindset has created a generation who are dependent on gadgets to live and build relationships. This clearly undermines the assertion of Husserl that it is actually the interaction and manner of communication that is more important rather than the content of the conversation. More than anything else, it does not recognize the nature of people as beings conscious of others in the world.

I don't believe that the continued innovation of the field of technology directly equates to the death of communication. Its effects, may it be good or bad, depends on how we use them.

It is not bad to use these gadgets readily made available for us in order to make our lives more convenient. However, one should not be a slave of machinery to the point that one has to be in solitary confinement from the rest of the society.

The Twist

by Jolo Villanueva

27 November 2012
Discussed text: Levinas, "It is There," Ethics and Infinity


What is being? What does it mean to be? These are the questions we've been tackling since the beginning of the school year. I somehow found myself content with Marcel's, Heidegger's, and Luijpen's takes on being. The essence of being from lived experience itself was appealing to me because it truly tackled what philosophy and rationality were all about: the human and his world;we make sense of the world by relying on direct experience and being IN the world rather than being OF the world.

Levinas, however, put a new twist into this. He argued that it is not enough "to be" in the Heideggerian sense. Affirming our existence through ourselves is not enough. This would merely lead to the generalization of the being of others. He argues that we must take into consideration the "uniqueness of the existence of each existent." An authentic life is a life focused outside oneself and towards the authenticity of others.

In my opinion, Levinas was merely formulating a more authentic and more open version of classic phenomenology. Since this view endorses lived experiences as sources for knowledge and reflection, isn't focusing on others a more open mode of experiencing? Going out of yourself and experiencing other people and their being is truly characteristic of phenomenology. Experiencing openly in relation to one's self is a good foundation in learning and appreciating the environment in a philosophical sense, but approaching others in their authenticity really gives a more authentic sense of being, because being IN the world entails every experience as open to learning and reflection, and realizing that others are also IN the world, rather than OF the world, makes experience richer and more phenomenological in the classical sense.