I thought Heidegger made an interesting point when he pointed out that an end can serve as a cause itself since it determines the means by which to attain the end.
I am kind of confused about Heidegger's problem with modern technology. I think he's saying that some of the causes of modern technology are concealed so therefore so is the truth about it, but what are the implications?
I find Heidegger's point about people be chained to technology to not only be true but also to be quite insightful. In 2018 people using technology nearly 24/7 people even use technology to things they do not need technology for like telling time. Heidegger is a little bit before our time so he was likely refering more to an object like the tv while in 2018 we would refer to the smart phone. I believe he was insightful because in 2018 with smart phones having their capabilities we never put down our phone.
I found Heidegger's thought that some people see technology to be a human activity to be interesting. Technology is obviously not a physical part of human beings however we use it so often that it seems that way. Technology is essentially a part of the human experience now because weak are never without it. If someone went somewhere that had not technology they wouldn't know wha to do with themselves because they are not used to being without technology.
If I am understanding Heidegger correctly, then I believe what he is doing in this essay is remarkably backwards oriented, especially for the time he was writing. Heidegger seeks to find the “Essence” of technology, and is unsatisfied with the idea that it is a means to an end for humans. He compares the relationship of technology (the thing) and the essence of Technology to the relationship between trees and the essence of trees. He says no one tree can have the essence of all trees, and likewise the essence of all trees cannot simply be explained by pointing to it (as if it were simply a tree.) I believe this metaphor fails and irreparably damages Heidegger’s foundation for the rest of his essay. This is because he is assuming that technology has an essence that exists in some metaphysical way. Unlike a tree or a human, where existentialists like Sartre would argue that the existence of such a thing precedes its essence, the essence of technology comes from the human or thing that has created it. I cannot see how there is any essential character technology beyond that of its creator/user. I do believe I can see the point that Heidegger is getting to, which seems to be that human use of technology has changed the way we relate to the world around us. And this is undeniably true, although this is not a moral nor an ethical claim. His appeal to the Greeks and specifically Aristotle is compelling if one’s intuitions already align with Heidegger’s, but if someone (as I have) disagrees with the idea that an anthropocentric definition of the essence of technology is insufficient then his arguments are at best inadequate.
When Heidegger introduces the concept of the standing-reserve he has this to say about it: “Whatever stands by in the sense of standing-reserve no longer stands over against us as object.” Is this simply the readiness-to-hand of equipment as opposed to its presence-at-hand, or is there something more to it, for Heidegger, in the context of modern technology?
I am having difficulty seeing the difference between what Heidegger calls modern technology and earlier technology. He says that modern technology is a “challenging” instead of a “bringing-forth.” Modern technology takes and stores energy for different purposes while earlier technology does not. He illustrates this with an example of an old windmill and claims that the windmill “does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it.” However, this distinction seems arbitrary to me.
Heidegger's concern comes from unknown consequences of technology. When he ask about causality veiled in darkness, I don't think he is thinking just about the cause of a technology. I think he is considering how causes in society are unknowingly stemmed from technology.
He states that today (1950s) we are too inclined to find a cause and effect relationship. However, some relationships are more complex then a simple one-to-one cause and effect, and require a deeper understanding in the mapping of how a technology shapes the value of a group of people.
Heidegger mentions modern technology putting the whole world in a state of stand by. He uses the hydroelectric dam over the Rhine as an example. I don't understand his point here? All instances of human tool and technology have existed to master the environment around us. Is he suggesting that having the whole world in a state of being "ready to hand" is detrimental?
From the reading it seems Heidegger has a particular problem with modern technology. He seems to romanticise older forms such as the saw mill.
I am a little confused on some of the points in this Essay. Is Heidegger saying that tech is bad because only the true essance of something is important. But because we can only see tech within its own bounds we are hidden from it's true essence?
I find it remakable that Heidegger saw this devlopment happening with tech and some what made it a means to allientation. He prodicted the addicitive nature to tech which is removing us from our real world setting.
1. Getting readers to question the meaning of essence when Heidegger is constantly alluding to his meaning of "essence." 2. It was interesting how he starts to discuss the meaning of essence regarding technology which is man-made then goes on to say "I am not talking about the essence of technology...but the essence of a tree." A tree which is apart of nature. I was confused on the comparison being made.
I find this view on technology to line up with the party line of the national socialists to a tee. Nazis are 'failsons' being so they never actually achieve what they so boldly set out to do, through all the jargon the arbitrary distinctions Heidegger ultimately has nothing useful to say about the essence of technology, yes yes he ultimately comes up with the idea that it is a process of the revealing of truth from some unknown metaphysical mystery realm.
The national socialists (of all nations) are univerasally guilty of this exact sloppy retreat into naive metaphysical idealism; with this in mind it should make complete sense that their utopia is one that has already existed (make Germany great again etc..).
I thought Heidegger made an interesting point when he pointed out that an end can serve as a cause itself since it determines the means by which to attain the end.
ReplyDeleteI am kind of confused about Heidegger's problem with modern technology. I think he's saying that some of the causes of modern technology are concealed so therefore so is the truth about it, but what are the implications?
I find Heidegger's point about people be chained to technology to not only be true but also to be quite insightful. In 2018 people using technology nearly 24/7 people even use technology to things they do not need technology for like telling time. Heidegger is a little bit before our time so he was likely refering more to an object like the tv while in 2018 we would refer to the smart phone. I believe he was insightful because in 2018 with smart phones having their capabilities we never put down our phone.
ReplyDeleteI found Heidegger's thought that some people see technology to be a human activity to be interesting. Technology is obviously not a physical part of human beings however we use it so often that it seems that way. Technology is essentially a part of the human experience now because weak are never without it. If someone went somewhere that had not technology they wouldn't know wha to do with themselves because they are not used to being without technology.
If I am understanding Heidegger correctly, then I believe what he is doing in this essay is remarkably backwards oriented, especially for the time he was writing. Heidegger seeks to find the “Essence” of technology, and is unsatisfied with the idea that it is a means to an end for humans. He compares the relationship of technology (the thing) and the essence of Technology to the relationship between trees and the essence of trees. He says no one tree can have the essence of all trees, and likewise the essence of all trees cannot simply be explained by pointing to it (as if it were simply a tree.) I believe this metaphor fails and irreparably damages Heidegger’s foundation for the rest of his essay. This is because he is assuming that technology has an essence that exists in some metaphysical way. Unlike a tree or a human, where existentialists like Sartre would argue that the existence of such a thing precedes its essence, the essence of technology comes from the human or thing that has created it. I cannot see how there is any essential character technology beyond that of its creator/user.
ReplyDeleteI do believe I can see the point that Heidegger is getting to, which seems to be that human use of technology has changed the way we relate to the world around us. And this is undeniably true, although this is not a moral nor an ethical claim. His appeal to the Greeks and specifically Aristotle is compelling if one’s intuitions already align with Heidegger’s, but if someone (as I have) disagrees with the idea that an anthropocentric definition of the essence of technology is insufficient then his arguments are at best inadequate.
When Heidegger introduces the concept of the standing-reserve he has this to say about it: “Whatever stands by in the sense of standing-reserve no longer stands over against us as object.” Is this simply the readiness-to-hand of equipment as opposed to its presence-at-hand, or is there something more to it, for Heidegger, in the context of modern technology?
ReplyDeleteI am having difficulty seeing the difference between what Heidegger calls modern technology and earlier technology. He says that modern technology is a “challenging” instead of a “bringing-forth.” Modern technology takes and stores energy for different purposes while earlier technology does not. He illustrates this with an example of an old windmill and claims that the windmill “does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it.” However, this distinction seems arbitrary to me.
Heidegger's concern comes from unknown consequences of technology. When he ask about causality veiled in darkness, I don't think he is thinking just about the cause of a technology. I think he is considering how causes in society are unknowingly stemmed from technology.
ReplyDeleteHe states that today (1950s) we are too inclined to find a cause and effect relationship. However, some relationships are more complex then a simple one-to-one cause and effect, and require a deeper understanding in the mapping of how a technology shapes the value of a group of people.
Heidegger mentions modern technology putting the whole world in a state of stand by. He uses the hydroelectric dam over the Rhine as an example. I don't understand his point here? All instances of human tool and technology have existed to master the environment around us. Is he suggesting that having the whole world in a state of being "ready to hand" is detrimental?
ReplyDeleteFrom the reading it seems Heidegger has a particular problem with modern technology. He seems to romanticise older forms such as the saw mill.
I am a little confused on some of the points in this Essay. Is Heidegger saying that tech is bad because only the true essance of something is important. But because we can only see tech within its own bounds we are hidden from it's true essence?
ReplyDeleteI find it remakable that Heidegger saw this devlopment happening with tech and some what made it a means to allientation. He prodicted the addicitive nature to tech which is removing us from our real world setting.
1. Getting readers to question the meaning of essence when Heidegger is constantly alluding to his meaning of "essence."
ReplyDelete2. It was interesting how he starts to discuss the meaning of essence regarding technology which is man-made then goes on to say "I am not talking about the essence of technology...but the essence of a tree." A tree which is apart of nature. I was confused on the comparison being made.
I find this view on technology to line up with the party line of the national socialists to a tee. Nazis are 'failsons' being so they never actually achieve what they so boldly set out to do, through all the jargon the arbitrary distinctions Heidegger ultimately has nothing useful to say about the essence of technology, yes yes he ultimately comes up with the idea that it is a process of the revealing of truth from some unknown metaphysical mystery realm.
ReplyDeleteThe national socialists (of all nations) are univerasally guilty of this exact sloppy retreat into naive metaphysical idealism; with this in mind it should make complete sense that their utopia is one that has already existed (make Germany great again etc..).