![]() |
||
|
1st Global Conference
|
||
Session 7b: Otherness and Strangeness
Though an increasing number of computer-mediated romantic relationships are being formed, Aaron Ben-Zeèv notes that “online relationships cannot overcome the desire for physical closeness” (2004, p. 54). Why can love not be sustained in cyberspace? This paper answers this central question drawing from work in the philosophy of technology and the philosophy of love. The central question does not have an obvious answer. Indeed, cyber-love can be described as a “Platonic postmodernist” type of love that seems ideally suited to the consumer culture’s emphasis on freedom and self-expression. Thus, in order to explain the shortcomings of this account of love, the paper looks at the Western tradition of thought about eros. This serves two purposes. First, it explains romantic love as an “immanent transcendence,” in which the relationship itself serves as the source of meaning and fulfillment. Second, it explains how the “other” in a relationship must have a certain “weightiness” in order for romantic love to thrive and sustain. The next section argues that computer-mediation is a non-neutral technique that filters out this essential weight of the other. It does so by fleshing out the concept of weight in terms of three defining qualities of love: (a) the “thrill of the other,” which speaks to the importance of affection, touch, and embodiment; (b) the “continuity of the other,” which speaks to the meaning of shared experiences; and (c) the “commanding presence of the other,” which speaks to commitment and the limitations of willing. This paper aspires to refine our understanding of the nature of love in a world in which personal relationships are increasingly mediated by information technologies. Exploring Strangeness in the Plurality
of Teacher-Student Relationship In a close relationship with students, school teachers
are exposed to the reflexivity of those who work for others, which
makes them vulnerable as a worker and as a person as they have to
encounter a new reality of teaching constantly. This experience is
not well explained by “Otherness”, which only represents
and rests on established and reproduced patters of social relationship.
|
||
© Inter-Disciplinary.Net
2007 |
||