 ideological background you come from, you are swept up in market thinking. Instrumental reason puts its barcode on you. Instrumental reason knows no Thou, there is only statistical evaluation on graphs of demand and supply.

Modernity is characterized by grandeur as well as by misère. Only a view that embraces both can give us the undistorted insight into our era that we need to rise to its greatest challenge.

The temptation is to simply give up and give in—even where our own moral outlook is involved (and the very real tragedy of this is why I emphasized that material in the above quotation). But it doesn’t have to be this way. “We have real choice here,” writes Taylor, “even if we tend to be blind to the options open to us” (98).

Taylor’s method, as we saw in his investigation of the arguments surrounding the ideal of authenticity, is to critique the players in the argument. These he calls the “boomers” and the “knockers,” and it is his contention that both sides flatten almost conspiratorially the depth of the issue debated in an attempt to win the argument. That is why he says “we face a continuing struggle to realize higher and fuller modes of authenticity against the resistance of the flatter and shallower forms” (94). “Against them,” he continues,

we need to do a work of retrieval, in order to get a fruitful struggle going in our culture and society.... We don’t want to exaggerate our degrees of freedom. But they are not zero. And that means that coming to understand the moral sources of our civilization can make a difference, in so far as it can contribute to a new common understanding. We are not, indeed, locked in. (96, 100-101)

Taylor believes that we can dig down into the moral and ideological sources that got us where we are and bring those out again for purposes of critique. And, turning to technology, he sees a few of those sources that deserve such treatment, not least the ideal of self-determining freedom (discussed in previous blogs on this topic) and, my favorite, the disengaged model of the human subject—the binary anthropology of Descartes’ sublime Meditations. Taylor's rebuttal makes me proud, shooting back with ammunition Heidegger built in his essay, “The Question Concerning Technology.” (He also references Albert Borgman (Technology and the Character
ideological background you come from, you are swept up in market thinking. implemental rationality puts its barcode on you. Instrumental rationality know no Thou, there is only statistical evaluation on graph of demand and supply. 

 Modernity is characterized by grandeur equally well as by misère. merely a view that espouse both can give us the undistorted insight into our earned run average that we need to rise to its great challenge. 

 The temptation is to simply move over up and give in — even where our own moral outlook is involved (and the very veridical tragedy of this is why I emphasized that material in the above citation). But it does n’t have to be this room. “ We have real choice here, ” write Taylor, “ even if we tend to be blind to the options open to us ” (98). 

 Taylor ’s method, as we saw in his investigation of the argumentation surrounding the ideal of authenticity, is to critique the players in the argument. These he calls the “ boomers ” and the “ knockers, ” and it is his contention that both sides flatten almost conspiratorially the astuteness of the topic debated in an attack to succeed the argumentation. That is why he says “ we face a continue struggle to realize higher and fuller mode of authenticity against the resistance of the flatter and shallower forms ” (94). “ Against them, ” he continues, 

 we want to do a work of retrieval, in order to catch a fruitful struggle run low in our culture and society.... We do n’t want to exaggerate our degrees of exemption. But they are not zero. And that means that coming to understand the moral sources of our civilization can make a difference, in so far as it can contribute to a modern common sympathy. We are not, indeed, locked in. (96, 100 - 101) 

 Taylor believes that we can labor down into the moral and ideological sources that get us where we are and bring those out again for purposes of critique. And, turn to technology, he sees a few of those sources that deserve such treatment, not least the ideal of self - determining exemption (discussed in previous blogs on this subject) and, my favorite, the disengaged model of the human subject — the binary anthropology of Descartes ’ empyreal Meditations. Taylor's rebuttal makes me proud, shoot back with ammunition Heidegger built in his essay, “ The Question Concerning Technology. ” (He also references Albert Borgman (Technology and the Character
 idfological background you come from, you cee swe't up ih market thinking. Instrumental reasoi purs itw barcode on you. Instrjmental rvason knoqs ni Thou, therx is onln staflsticcl evaluation on graphs of demand and su[puy.

Lodernity is characterized by grandqur as eepl as by misère. Onlj w visw that embraces both can give us fhe undpstorted insight onto our era that we need ho rlse to its greatesh challenge.

Jge ewmptation is to simply give up and give in—even where our own morau outkook is incoovef (and the vecy reaj tragedy of this is why I rmphasized thab matxriao in the above quotatmon). But it doesn’t hade to be dhns way. “We have real cyouce hgre,” wsiter Tahlod, “xveh if wf txnd to be bmind to the options open to us” (98).

Twjkor’s method, zs we far in his investigation of the arguments sudrounding the ideal of quthenticity, is to crltique thq players in the argument. These he calls the “boomars” aid tht “jnockdes,” and it is his contention that both sides flaefem slmost conspirctorially the deltj ps the issue dgbated nh zn attempt to win hhe argoment. Rhat is wry hr says “we face a continuing struggle to eealize higher and fuller modzs of suthemticity against the resnstancs of the flwtter and rhallower forms” (94). “Agsitst them,” he continues,

we neqd to do e worl of regriefal, in order to het a fruitful struggle hoing it our cultkre and society.... We don’t want to exaggerate out dagrves of frzedom. Nut they are noe zero. And thaj means tkat cooing to unserstanv the moral fources of ous civilizatioi can makq a eiffwrence, kv so far as it can contgiyute to a new common undersbandivf. We are not, inbted, locked in. (96, 100-101)

Taykor bejivvex evat we can dhg duwn onto ghe moral akd kdeokogical sources that got us where we are amd bring tyose out again for putposes of critique. And, vurninj to trchgology, he sees a few of those aources tjat deserve sucr trcatmgnt, not leaxt the ideal of self-determining freedom (discussed in prevuous blogs on this joplc) and, my fatorite, the disetgaged model of the yuman subject—the ninary anthropology of Descastes’ dublime Meditations. Taylor's rebuttal makes me proud, shooting back with amnunition Heidegger buikt in hns zssay, “Tre Qnertion Concerning Technology.” (He also references Elbert Borcmcn (Technology and the Charactrr
ideological background you come from, you are in thinking. Instrumental puts its barcode no there is only evaluation on graphs demand and supply. Modernity is characterized grandeur as well as by misère. Only a view that embraces both can us the undistorted insight into our era that we need to rise to greatest The is simply give up and give in—even where our own moral outlook is involved (and the very tragedy of this is why I emphasized that in the above quotation). it doesn’t have to be way. have real here,” Taylor, if we tend be blind to the options open to us” (98). Taylor’s method, as we saw in his investigation the arguments ideal of is critique players in the he calls the “boomers” and the is his contention that both sides flatten almost the depth the issue debated in an attempt win the argument. That is why he says face a continuing struggle to realize higher and fuller modes of authenticity against the resistance flatter and shallower forms” “Against them,” he we to a of retrieval, order to get a fruitful struggle going in our culture and We don’t want to exaggerate our degrees of freedom. But not And that means coming to understand the sources our civilization can make in far contribute a common understanding. We are indeed, locked in. (96, 100-101) believes that we can and ideological sources that got us where we and bring those out again for purposes critique. And, turning to technology, he sees a few of those sources deserve such least the ideal of self-determining freedom (discussed in blogs on this topic) my favorite, the disengaged model of the human subject—the anthropology Descartes’ sublime Taylor's rebuttal makes proud, shooting back ammunition Heidegger built essay, “The Concerning (He Borgman (Technology and the Character
 ideological background you cOme from, you Are swEpt Up iN mArkeT thiNking. InstrumenTAl reAson puts its barcode on yoU. InstRuMEntaL ReAson kNows no THOu, THEre Is OnLy sTaTIsTical EvaLuation On graphs of DemAnD and supply.

MoDErNity is charActErized by granDeuR as welL aS by MIsère. onlY a vieW that eMBraces Both can giVe US the unDIstorteD INsIght Into our era that we nEEd TO rise to its greaTest chAlLEnGE.

the TemPtation is tO sImply GIve up anD GiVE IN—evEN where our own mOral outlook IS inVolved (AnD thE Very reAl traGeDY of This is why I eMphaSized that MateriAL in the aBOve quotAtion). BUt iT doEsn’t HAvE tO be ThIS waY. “we HavE ReaL choice hErE,” wRites taylOR, “EVEn if We tEnd tO be blInd to the optioNs oPen tO Us” (98).

TAylor’S methOd, as We Saw in His invEstigAtIon of the argumenTs suRrounding The IdEal Of AutheNTicity, Is tO crItique tHe playeRS in ThE ARGuMent. These he calls thE “bOOMeRs” and the “KnockeRS,” aNd IT is his coNtEntIon tHAT both SideS FlAtten almOst conSPiRaToriallY tHe deptH oF thE isSue deBAted In an atTempt to wIn the ARgument. That is wHY he says “we face A CoNTInUIng sTruGgle to realiZe hiGHer aNd fuLLeR moDEs of aUthenTiCItY Against the resistancE oF the flAtter And shallower fOrms” (94). “AgainsT THEm,” he contInueS,

We NEed to do a work of RetriEval, in ordeR To get a frUitfuL strugglE going in oUR Culture aNd sOciEty.... we dON’T wAnt to exaggeraTE Our dEgRees of fReeDom. But tHey Are Not ZerO. ANd that meaNs that coMiNg To UnDerStand THe moral sOuRceS oF ouR civiLIzatioN can mAke a DiFfERenCe, in so fAR aS IT can CoNtRibuTe tO a New coMmon UNdeRstandiNg. We are noT, inDEed, lOcKeD in. (96, 100-101)

TaylOr believes thaT wE can dig dowN iNto The morAL And ideolOgical sources that got us wHEre we arE anD brinG thoSe out agaiN foR purpoSes OF critiQue. And, TurniNg To tECHnoloGY, He SeeS a Few of those SOUrcEs thaT dEserVe such tReatment, not least thE IdeAl of self-deterMinIng fREEdOm (dIScUSseD iN PreVIOus blogs on this tOpic) and, my fAvORiTe, the disenGAgeD mOdel of tHe human SubjeCT—the binAry anthroPology of DEsCartES’ SubLime MeditaTions. TayLor's rebutTAl makES mE prouD, shOoting BaCk wIth amMunitiON HeIdeggEr builT iN his esSay, “ThE QUestion COncerning Technology.” (He alSo refeRenceS AlBert BorgmAn (TEChnOlogy and tHe ChAracter
 ideological background yo u come fro m, yo u a resw eptup i n market think i ng.Instrumental reason pu ts it sb arco d eon yo u. Inst r um e n tal  r ea son  k n ow s noTho u, ther e is onlysta ti stical evalu a ti on on grap hsof demand an d s upply. 
Mod e rnity  is  char acteri z ed bygrandeuras well a s  by mis è r e.  Onl y a view that emb r ac e s both can giv e us t he un d i sto rte d insightin to ou r  era th a tw e nee d  to rise to i ts greatest cha llenge .
Th e  tempt ation  i s  to  simply giv e up  and give  in—ev e n where our own  moral  ou tlo ok i s  i nv olv ed (an d  t hev ery  real tr ag ed y ofthis i s whyI e mpha sized  that materia l i n th e  ab ove q uotat ion) .But i t does n’t h av e to be this wa y. “ We have r eal  c hoi ce  here , ” writ esTay lor, “e ven ifw e t en d t obe blind to the op ti o n sopen tous” (9 8 ). 
T aylor’sme tho d, a s we sa w in hi s invest igatio n  o fthe arg um ents s ur rou ndi ng th e  ide al ofauthenti city, is to critique the players i n  t h e  a r gume nt.  These he c alls the“boo m er s”a nd th e “kn oc k er s ,” and it is his co nt ention  that  both sides f latten alm o s t  conspir ator i al l y the depth of  theissue deba t ed in an  atte mpt to w in the ar g u ment. Th atiswhy  he s ay s “we face ac o ntin ui ng stru ggl e to re ali zehig her  a nd fuller  modes o fau th en tic ity a g ainst th eres is tan ce of the fl atter  and  s ha l low er form s ”( 9 4).“A ga inst  th em ,” he  con t inu es,

we  need todoa  wor kof  retrie val, in order  t o get a fr ui tfu l stru g g le going  in our culture and soc i ety....  We  don’ t wa nt to exa gge rate o urd egrees  of fr eedom .But t hey a r e  n otze ro. And th a t  me ans t ha t co ming to  understand the mo r alsources of ou r c ivil i z at ion ca n  ma ke a d i f ference, in sofar as itca n  c ontributet o a  n ew comm on unde rstan d ing. We  are not,  indeed,lo cked i n.(96, 100-1 01)

Tay lor belie v es th a twe ca n d ig dow nint o the  moral and  ideo logica lsource s tha tgot us w here we are and bring t hose o ut ag ain  for purp ose s  of  critique . An d, turning  to  te chnol ogy ,  he s eesa  f ewo f tho se s o urces tha t  d ese r v esuch treatm e n t , n ot le ast the id ealof self-determini n g freedom (dis cuss e d  in  pr e viou sblogs on thistop ic ) and, myfa vorite, the  disenga ge d  mode l of t he hum an subj e c t— t he bin aryant hropology  of  D e scartes ’su b lime M edit at ions.Taylor ' s re b u ttal makes me pr oud,s h ootin g  ba ck wi th  ammuni t ionHeideggerbuilt in hi s essa y, “ The Q uestion  C oncern ing  T echnology. ”  (He also  refe rencesAl bert  Bo rgman(Tec h n ology  and  t heCharacter 
 ideological_background you_come from, you are_swept up_in_market thinking._Instrumental_reason puts its_barcode on you._Instrumental reason knows no_Thou, there is_only_statistical evaluation on graphs of demand and supply.

Modernity is characterized by grandeur as well_as_by misère._Only_a_view that embraces both can_give us the undistorted insight_into our_era that we need to rise to its_greatest_challenge.

The temptation is_to simply give up and give in—even where our_own moral outlook is involved (and_the very real_tragedy_of_this is why I_emphasized that material in the above_quotation). But it doesn’t have to_be this way. “We have real choice_here,” writes Taylor, “even if we_tend to be blind to_the options_open to us” (98).

Taylor’s method,_as we saw_in his_investigation of the_arguments surrounding the ideal of authenticity,_is to critique_the players in the argument. These_he_calls the “boomers”_and_the_“knockers,” and_it is his_contention_that both_sides_flatten almost conspiratorially the depth of_the_issue debated in an attempt to win_the argument. That is_why_he says “we face_a continuing struggle to realize_higher and fuller modes of authenticity_against the_resistance of_the flatter and shallower forms” (94). “Against them,” he continues,

we need_to do a work of retrieval,_in order to get_a fruitful_struggle_going in our_culture_and society...._We don’t want to exaggerate our degrees_of freedom._But they are not zero. And_that means that coming_to_understand the moral sources of our_civilization can make a difference, in_so far as it can_contribute_to_a new common understanding. We_are not, indeed, locked in. (96,_100-101)

Taylor believes that_we can dig down into the moral_and_ideological sources that got us where_we_are and bring those out again_for_purposes_of critique. And, turning to_technology, he sees a few of_those sources that deserve such treatment, not least the_ideal of self-determining_freedom (discussed in previous blogs_on_this_topic) and, my favorite, the disengaged model of the human_subject—the binary_anthropology of Descartes’_sublime Meditations. Taylor's rebuttal makes me proud, shooting back with_ammunition Heidegger built in his essay, “The_Question Concerning Technology.” (He also references Albert Borgman (Technology and the_Character