In the Name of Sanity

by Lewis Mumford

Le conquiste della tecnica e una certa meccanizzazione dell'esistenza hanno condotto a esaltare la tecnologia come esempio di razionalità perfetta, oggettiva e priva di errore. Ma la ragione della macchina è diversa dalla ragione umana, e pensare che il progresso tecnologico non riguardi anche la sfera spirituale significa aver capito ben poco della ricchezza presente nell'animo di ogni individuo. Soltanto in nome di una ragione liberata da questo equivoco è possibile riappropriarsi della fonte stessa di tale l'amore, l'unico elemento in grado di ricomporre la frattura che ha separato ragione ed emozione e di restituire senso a una tecnologia altrimenti senza scopo e significato. Ed è proprio questa la sfida nella quale, secondo Mumford, si gioca il destino dell'uomo moderno e in definitiva della nostra specie.

Genres: Philosophy, History

Unknown Binding

First published January 1, 1954

About the author

Lewis Mumford (October 19, 1895 – January 26, 1990) was an American historian and philosopher of technology and science. Particularly noted for his study of cities and urban architecture, he had a tremendously broad career as a writer that also included a period as an influential literary critic. Mumford was influenced by the work of Scottish theorist Sir Patrick Geddes.

Reviews

[Stefano Solventi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Bah.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this was better and worse than 'The Condition of Man.' Worse in that it is more uneven. But this book is a collection of essays/speeches, which allows him to concentrate on more specific questions that highlight his strengths. His best stuff here deals with mankind relating to his environment, especially our machines.

Most approach the question of technology by saying something like, "Technology is morally neutral, and can be used for good or bad by people." Mumford's take is more nuanced. He seems to say that 1) Technology enters a context in which it is much more likely/not likely that it will be used for good or bad. We must be careful, discerning, and responsible. 2) Technology should be viewed not just on what it can accomplish, but how it accomplishes its tasks. His main concern here is how technology can separate us from our humanity if we are not careful and watchful. He urges us to return to 'technics' that enhance, rather than detract, from our humanity.

I don't disagree with him, but I was disappointed that Mumford does not seem to offer any way to get there. Maybe its unfair since these were short speeches/essays. How to make sure, short of a philosopher king telling us what to do, we create only 'good' technology in a free market society is beyond me -- perhaps there is no 'solution.' In regards to argument #1 of his above -- he uses nuclear fission as an obvious example. But he does not deal with the scenario that the U.S. dealt with, namely that the Nazi's might possibly developed it first. In a fallen world, do we then have to develop it too? I don't think there is an obvious answer, but he does not deal with this question.

I thought this article on what he calls 'Authoritarian and Democratic Technics' http://www.primitivism.com/mumford.htm summed things up better than his work in the book. So if you are curious, my recommendation is to see the link.

[Elizabeth]

c1954 first edition
dustjacket is quite frayed book is ok