Skip to main content

If Aristotle used emojis


Modern day life has brought many a convenience to us humans.  A toaster to toast a piece of bread by merely pressing a button or a steaming cup of caffeine with the press of another button.  And that is just to start our day.

Our entire existence now has become subject to multiple button pressing activity, least of which is the incessant banter between two or more individuals of our species using the manifold tech available to us.

Communication therefore has transformed from what used to be a difficult exercise in millennia past and now more so become central to our (perceived) success as a civilization occupying this rock.

I would argue how and what we choose to communicate in today’s day and age are immensely important to our future survival.  The POTUS presenting a point of view about a deadly pathogen and its impact to society vs a trained immunologist articulating what we as a society need to do for self-preservation brings it home to many of us.

The very definition of communication though begs some scrutiny.  It is variously defined as:
  •         The imparting or exchanging of information or news or
  •          Means of sending or receiving information, such as telephone lines or computers

According to the Aristotelian Teleology (the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise) we need to pay attention to what communication provides rather than why and how it originates.

The contradiction to that however is the idea that our modern conveniences now allow many of us to use shorthand to get the “messaging” across to another of our kind or not.

If emojis (graphic images that serve as a short hand for human emotion and thought) can convey the same idea instead of a whole sentence then it serves the sender and receiver the purpose of saving time and energy it might take to type out a whole sentence.

But then again if that is true and the ilk of Aristotelian era had resorted to punching out similes on papyrus would the treatises have been as profound as they are viewed by our ilk now?

Would they amount to awarding a bagful of PhD degrees to scores of scholars?  Are we as a species better off or worse with those writings to look back on and not a bunch of symbols?

In that vein I have always wondered whether Michelangelo would have been better at his work if he had Autodesk on his table before he set out to carve the Pieta?  Or was there a fundamental human X factor that held Leonardo’s brush when he finished the Mona Lisa?

While we have been able to use tech to put men on the moon and do deep cellular research into our human body, aided by fascinating scientific advances enabled by advanced communication, we have not seen much if any modern day Pietas being chiseled either.

Do any of us crave more of that type of expression or communication anymore?

Are we better off knowing that Aristotle did not use emojis? 



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

But What If We're Wrong?

I attempted to read this book by author Chuck Klosterman backward to forward but it started hurting my brain so I decided to stop and do it like any other publication in the English language.  Start from page 1 and move to the right. Witty, caustic and thought provoking this is a book you want to read if you believe that the status quo might, just might be wrong. At times bordering on being contrarian about most things around us it tries to zero in on the notion of what makes anything believable and certain in our minds.  The fact that there is a fact itself is ironic.  Something analogous to the idea that you can never predict the future because there is no future. Many books and movies have tried to play on this concept - best that I recollect (I think I am) was 'The Truman Show'.  This book by Klosterman attempts to provoke the reader to at least contemplate that what they think they know may be wrong. He uses examples like concept of gravity, and how it ...
2 comments
Read more

You are important to us

Followed by piano music.   Followed by 'we are experiencing heavier than usual call volume'.  Sounds macabre like bleeding during menstruation or after a ghastly attack with a weapon on a hemophiliac.  Sorry Mrs. Johnson but it appears little Gertrude here has been bleeding heavier than usual what with her night time activities competing with the woodchucks in your neighborhood. Some services even go as far as to pick a random day to say - 'if you were to call us during the Chinese lunar month when the moon is axiomatically hugging the polar star with Jupiter intravenous when call volume is light'.  Well I will be damned.  I thought  I had checked with my astrologer before I placed this well focused call but  I guess this is what you get for listening to a quack. Umph! I am not sure which marketing genius came up with this personal touch concept of informing the caller that you are really a jackass for actually calling the customer serv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Of Jims and Johns

Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...
2 comments
Read more