Liking is for Cowards

[Rainbow Skywalker 642]

As a class assignment we were told to analyze the structure of this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29franzen.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

It's a very complex argument that basically defines the difference between liking and loving, and says that liking is for cowards because love requires an actual commitment, whereas we don't have to worry about, say, our phones because we just like them.  It is definitely worth your time to read.  I can answer almost any question you might have about it, because my Lang. teacher and I discussed this thing super in depth.

 

Personally, I found only one flaw in his argument which is that not everybody who uses technology is obsessing over the ergonomic factors it provides.  Some of us actually use e-mail for contacting people, and not just because it is a safe haven from the outside world in which all of our desires are suited perfectly.

 

So what do you think about the article?  Do you think that being likeable is a narcissistic position and that machines are attempting to replace real love with only "likes"?

 

 

[Katana 298]

Well, for starters, I'm going to laughably dismiss his notion that "a smartphone gives, and does not take; thus idealizing the perfect relationship". The same damn thing can be said about a million things. A bag of chips GIVES you chips, and never takes anything from you. Besides, you GIVE your smartphone power via charging.

 

I'm thinking you may have misinterpreted his point with your criticism, or perhaps he didn't qualify it all that well. If we simply lambasted "all technology", we'd be throwing away our cotton gin and butter churners as worthless post-modernist materialism. Technology definitely has utility, and even life-saving application. Similarly, while smartphones have added E-mail and emergency protocols, they've also adopted gargantuanly useless social networks and messaging systems, which is really what he's focusing on.

 

But it's not just social networks, or even really technology, that causes people to care less about individual things. We're so connected nowadays, that it's really difficult to care in equal proportion to all the messages we see or hear during the day. A man in Philadelphia was accused of waterboarding an 11-year-old girl. Did that make you feel sad? Maybe. Did it make you feel *traumatized*? Probably not. We develop close relationships only by choice with the few things that matter to us - and we're encouraged to spread out that "caring" such that you don't really "love" anything. If someone or something suddenly starts to cause you pain, it can be abandoned in favor of alternatives.

 

It's a complex social circumstance, and certainly not something with any easy or direct solution (ie, ban smartphones)

[Scootalove 10,689]

Smartphones and technology are known for social networks and messaging systems, but I wouldn't say that it indicates how you love or like someone I'd have to say that an article like this makes me laugh.

[Castle Bleck 19,366]

I call...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1QCBF3h_tM

 

...on that.

 

Just look at all the relationships that go down the porta-john simply because people rush in to said commitments.

[Dzastur 1,719]

*ears pinned back, hugging my "brohoof" points*

 

It's okay... you still matter...you still matter...

[ChoroChii 284]

I couldn't even read through that whole thing, it was so stupid. These are machines, not actual people. Throwing them away for a more updated version means nothing. They were invented so people have entertainment, means of communication, and better access to information. Then they add in things that people might like for money. This has nothing to do with social fundamentals.