Is Civilization a tool of man, or is man a tool of civilization?
BluTGI,
Looking to the birth of both subjects, it is easily seen that civilization (human civilization) was created by humans as a tool to group efforts in order to make life easier for each individual group member. Although, after creation, it can be argued that man is a tool of civilization, in the way that the civilization is so enormous that the withdrawal of one would not make a significant difference - many may view the concept as civilization being above the individual human and hence the civilization can survive with the casualties of it’s members. Roles are not as important anymore, they are much more easily replaced. I hate to generalize at this point, because I think it important to specify situations in order to better understand this topic, but I must say that the final and overlaying point is that civilization cannot exist without human beings, since we constitute what it is - or we are the primary ingredient. On the other hand, ‘I’ believe that humans, generally, can live without civilization…Frighter? This is your playing field…want to add anything?
With minimal effort we can forsee this idea emanating from the definition of the word ‘civilization’ : An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
But again, from the definition of the word ‘tool’ we find that the other side can still be argued: A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
…since a ‘device’ used to perform manual or mechanical work can be both civilization and a human being. So each can be a tool to each other, depending on matter and circumstance, it’s also possible for each to be a tool to each other at the same time.
Concluding, with creation in mind, civilization is a tool to human kind. But in practice each is a tool to each other.
What’s your take?
suppose civilization is man, western civilization as we know it is the extension of man via specific media, these varying media make up our cultural differences and to remove them would be to remove the culture itself in it’s specific manifestation but the archetypes of that manifestation would still be present within the original, ie man…to remove man from culture/civilization would be incoherent really as what would be left would simply be the specific tools/media that comprise the extension that makes up that culture…
rambling but my take on it…can you tell i just finished mcluhan’s understand media
Thales i wouldnt input media into it, that would only make the question deeper than what it is. Also simply because media is the tool of men who can afford to control it, just as civilization could be described as a tool of men who could control it. Plus I dont think that media keeps races and diffrent ecenomics seperated. If it does then id like to hear a list of shows, movies and music that seperates us.
I asked one person what he thought and he compared it to which came first Chicken or the EGG. While we know that man came first. its still some what simular.
media is a tool…media is the plural of medium…such as a hammer is the extension of or medium of expression of particular muscular groups in a particular action…
you misunderstand medium…mcluhan would be a good place to start but then the definition must be taken to it’s logical extremes…culture is an extension of man within the environment of being-with, thus culture is an extension of man’s stance to that environment ie. a medium of expression…
if that clears it up
o.k lets subsitute a parent as man and the child as civilazation.we can do this becase man created civilazation like parents create a child.
the parents nuture the child after they have created it, same as man continues to nurish civilazation by technology,ex…
Even though the child as it gets older can take care of and be a tool for its mother it would have never existed without its parent or creator.the same as the comparason of civilazation and man.without man civlazation will not florish and without civilazation man probably cannot florsh as well.so which makes man a tool of civlazation and civlazation not a tool for man, in this concept.this means that the first should be adressed as the creator and the created as the created made by the tool.unless the word ‘be’ was added to the context you have as the main question.i think.