The Philosophy of Technology
The Medium Is the Massage: Why McLuhan Was Right About Everything
Every time you scroll instead of read, glance instead of study, or feel vaguely anxious without knowing why, you are living inside an argument Marshall McLuhan made in 1964.
The Idea
Most of us still think about technology the way we think about a hammer: it's a neutral tool, and what matters is what you do with it. McLuhan's great insight was that this is almost entirely wrong. His famous line — 'the medium is the message' — means that the form of a communication technology reshapes human behaviour and perception far more profoundly than anything transmitted through it. Television didn't matter because of what was on it; it mattered because it trained human attention toward passive reception, emotional immediacy, and the collapse of distance. The printing press didn't matter because of which books it printed; it mattered because it rewired European cognition toward linearity, individualism, and the idea that knowledge could be privately owned. McLuhan's lens cuts deeper than 'is this technology good or bad?' It asks: what new sensorium does this technology create? He divided media into 'hot' and 'cool' — a distinction often misunderstood. Hot media (radio, film, print) deliver high-definition information through a single sense, demanding little participation. Cool media (telephone, television, the seminar) are low-definition, requiring the audience to fill in gaps. Each type, he argued, produces a different kind of person and a different kind of society. The point isn't to be nostalgic or alarmist. It's to notice that every technology is an extension of human capacity — and that every extension also amputates something.
In the World
In 1969, Playboy magazine published what became one of the most quoted interviews of the twentieth century. McLuhan sat down for a long, strange conversation in which he predicted, with almost eerie precision, a world connected by an instantaneous electronic nervous system — a 'global village' in which everyone would be simultaneously aware of everything, and in which that awareness would breed not enlightenment but anxiety, tribalism, and retribalisation. He described a world where the boundaries between public and private would dissolve, where information overload would become the defining psychological condition, and where the very concept of a detached, individual point of view would become increasingly untenable. He was describing, in the year of the moon landing, something that looks very much like social media. What makes this more than lucky prophecy is the underlying logic: McLuhan had noticed that electric media, unlike print, do not allow you to pause, re-read, or maintain critical distance. They envelop. They involve. They pull you into the action rather than letting you observe it from a remove. When Facebook's internal researchers discovered in 2021 that the platform was actively worsening users' emotional states and chose to suppress the findings anyway, they were confirming — probably without knowing it — an argument McLuhan had made about the structural logic of involving, participatory media more than fifty years earlier.
Why It Matters
The practical gift McLuhan offers is a different question to ask whenever a new technology enters your life. Not 'what can I do with this?' but 'what is this doing to me?' The smartphone didn't change your life because of which apps you downloaded. It changed your life because it made you permanently interruptible, reconfigured your relationship with boredom, and made solitude feel like an emergency to be solved. Those are structural effects of the medium itself — not the content, not the design choices, not even the algorithms, though those amplify everything. Once you see this, you can't unsee it. You start noticing that reading on a screen feels different from reading on paper not because one is better but because they genuinely are different cognitive experiences. You notice that a phone call and a text message don't just differ in convenience — they invoke different versions of you. McLuhan doesn't tell you what to do with any of this. But he gives you the vocabulary to have an honest conversation with yourself about what you're actually choosing when you choose a medium — and what you might be quietly giving up.
A Question to Ponder
If every medium extends one human capacity while quietly amputating another, what capacity do you think the technologies you use most heavily have been amputating in you — and have you ever consciously chosen to accept that trade?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable