Elastic Selves in the Age of Enhancement
Susana Badiola wonders how technology will help us understand our selves.
Language can get particularly misleading when “I” is intent on pondering all the stuff that goes on in the mind that generates the “I” in the first place. Dogs and computers are things that are out in the world. You either have one or you don’t. And, if you do, you are easily able to demonstrate this to others. The communication back and forth is rather clear and objective.
Here again however a distinction can be made between being or not being yourself with regard to things which are able to be demonstrated. If one day you find out from the doctor that you have an inoperable brain tumor, or have contracted AIDS, “I” can well come to embody a very different perspective on life. Or if your beloved spouse or child was murdered, “I” too can then come to reflect on life emotionally and psychologically such that you are never quite the same again.
But what is the true or the false way for one to embody a self with respect to conflicting goods? Interactions that garner particular reactions [good or bad] from others depending on the moral and political values that you embrace.
Yes, any particular “I” may not know what to think, but, depending on the context, there either is or is not a rational way in which to think about someone or something. You can’t make up your mind but there are ways in which to show you what a rational mind is obligated to believe or know.
There are epistemological boundaries separating that which we can know for certain and that which we cannot.
And it is always the latter that is of most interest to me. Things that “I” can draw more or less informed and educated conclusions regarding…and things that appear to more in the nature of personal opinions.
And, in regard to our day to day interactions, what could possibly be a more crucial task for philosophers to take on?