There could have been some cogent thesis in here. Could have been, but wasn’t.

If this professor had discussed – with any sort of evidence to back it up – how reading on a screen might differ from reading a physical book, for instance, at least the essay would have had some meat on its clattering bones.

(Personally I think this effect will disappear over time as e-readers become “readers” and physical books become odd, rarely-used objects.)

Instead the piece to which I linked attempts to throw a bunch of quotes and allusions at the problem which all basically amount to “technology bad.” Which, maybe it is. But it takes more than just personal distaste to demonstrate that.

I straddle the line of empiricism and the humanities. I’ve always been deeply interested in both the scientific and the artistic. I never saw any reason to specialize, so it’s easy to see the flaws and blind spots implicit to both worldviews.

Empiricists often deny anything that is not quantifiable. Deny it even (and sometimes especially) when it is obvious, ever-present and immutable. This is a fatal flaw in their construction of the world, and why so many people (contrary to many articles I’ve seen lately) distrust scientists.

However, humanities scholars often elevate the personal and non-evidential experiences to primacy, ignoring all else.

The linked essay commits the latter error, and more.

Why does the professor not just admit they are a traditionalist, and be done with it? That’d be more intellectually honest and hard to argue with. But instead, they feel the need to toss out the old worn Adorno quotes and call it an argument.

Not good enough.

As for me, I’ve read more long-form pieces and thought about them more deeply in the years since I’ve gotten my iPad than I have since my mid-20s. It’s the best thing that has ever happened to my reading life.