I am struggling to understand Heidegger’s use of the word destining here and what he means by it. He defines it early on when he says: “We shall call that sending-that-gathers which first starts man upon a way of revealing, destining.” The way he takes about it, especially in regards to history, makes it sound as if he is championing a view that everything is predetermined. However, this seems entirely inconsistent from an existential point of view. Is his use of this term more subtle than what I am assuming?
Heidegger’s “Memorial Address” made the concept of our (in)authentic relationship with technology more clear to me. In fact, parts of it reminded me of Sartre’s concept of bad faith. This is particularly apparent when Heidegger writes about his concern that calculative thinking may become the only way of thinking and, if that’s the case, “man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature–that he is a meditative being.” This seems analogous to Sartre saying we are in bad faith when we deny a key aspect of our being.
While I understand that Heidegger thinks revealing through art is more authentic and less harmful to humans and the world than revealing through technology, I am not sure why he chooses art as the saving power of technology. What would art as the saving power look like in relation to technology?
Assuming my interpretation is correct, although I'm not sure that I agree with Heidegger that it is a greater threat when the world is not under threat of a WW3 than when it is, I can see how the threat of another world war can cause us to rethink our relationship with technology and nature for the better.
I like the concept of that we no longer see the real truth with modern tech because it is based as physics being an exact science. So we dont not come to find the actual truth that older tech used to give us.
Im conffused to how after breaking down all the differnt catergories of tech and by giving solid definitions he still settles with it being Ambiguous? I understand how its difficult to get to the route of its essence but it seems well defined.
With a better understanding of how Heidegger understands the essence of technology, I get the intuition that he is doing something (at least vaguely) Nietzschean. It seems that Heidegger does not have any aversion to technology, but he does want to avoid a sort of scientific or mechanistic view on the world and nature that is so common under enframing. Like Nietzsche, who called this type of perspective on the world “one of the stupidest” and “poorest in meaning,” I think Heidegger agrees with Nietzsche and thinks that this mentality is detrimental to any worthy pursuit of the True, Good, and Beautiful.
On the subject of Thoughtlessness, I really enjoy the metaphor of the field left fallow. But I am more intrigued by Heidegger’s apparent concerns for the continuing development of technology and how so many of his concerns remain in the contemporary conversation. Particularly regarding the quote, “In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology. These forces, which everywhere and every minute… impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other-these forces, since man has not made them, have moved long since beyond his will and have outgrown his capacity for decision.” Heidegger sees technological advancement as inevitable, and so he wants everyone as prepared as they can be to examine the way we experience and interact with technology so as to help ensure meaning is not lost in the process.
This could be a complete misreading but is Heidegger advocating for the elevation of culture to be a necessity so that the human species does not loose/destroy itself in the process of technological unfolding? Can we even seriously use human anymore or is this more and more a post human epoch? Why does it matter if we do indeed live in a post human epoch?
However even if we are post human, and may one day become truly post human (genetic augmentation, increased integration with technology and so on) we will still have to think about the framework with which we are constructing and how it will effect existence for other networks of consciousness.
I am struggling to understand Heidegger’s use of the word destining here and what he means by it. He defines it early on when he says: “We shall call that sending-that-gathers which first starts man upon a way of revealing, destining.” The way he takes about it, especially in regards to history, makes it sound as if he is championing a view that everything is predetermined. However, this seems entirely inconsistent from an existential point of view. Is his use of this term more subtle than what I am assuming?
ReplyDeleteHeidegger’s “Memorial Address” made the concept of our (in)authentic relationship with technology more clear to me. In fact, parts of it reminded me of Sartre’s concept of bad faith. This is particularly apparent when Heidegger writes about his concern that calculative thinking may become the only way of thinking and, if that’s the case, “man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature–that he is a meditative being.” This seems analogous to Sartre saying we are in bad faith when we deny a key aspect of our being.
While I understand that Heidegger thinks revealing through art is more authentic and less harmful to humans and the world than revealing through technology, I am not sure why he chooses art as the saving power of technology. What would art as the saving power look like in relation to technology?
ReplyDeleteAssuming my interpretation is correct, although I'm not sure that I agree with Heidegger that it is a greater threat when the world is not under threat of a WW3 than when it is, I can see how the threat of another world war can cause us to rethink our relationship with technology and nature for the better.
I like the concept of that we no longer see the real truth with modern tech because it is based as physics being an exact science. So we dont not come to find the actual truth that older tech used to give us.
ReplyDeleteIm conffused to how after breaking down all the differnt catergories of tech and by giving solid definitions he still settles with it being Ambiguous? I understand how its difficult to get to the route of its essence but it seems well defined.
With a better understanding of how Heidegger understands the essence of technology, I get the intuition that he is doing something (at least vaguely) Nietzschean. It seems that Heidegger does not have any aversion to technology, but he does want to avoid a sort of scientific or mechanistic view on the world and nature that is so common under enframing. Like Nietzsche, who called this type of perspective on the world “one of the stupidest” and “poorest in meaning,” I think Heidegger agrees with Nietzsche and thinks that this mentality is detrimental to any worthy pursuit of the True, Good, and Beautiful.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of Thoughtlessness, I really enjoy the metaphor of the field left fallow. But I am more intrigued by Heidegger’s apparent concerns for the continuing development of technology and how so many of his concerns remain in the contemporary conversation. Particularly regarding the quote, “In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology. These forces, which everywhere and every minute… impose upon man under the form of some technical contrivance or other-these forces, since man has not made them, have moved long since beyond his will and have outgrown his capacity for decision.” Heidegger sees technological advancement as inevitable, and so he wants everyone as prepared as they can be to examine the way we experience and interact with technology so as to help ensure meaning is not lost in the process.
This could be a complete misreading but is Heidegger advocating for the elevation of culture to be a necessity so that the human species does not loose/destroy itself in the process of technological unfolding? Can we even seriously use human anymore or is this more and more a post human epoch? Why does it matter if we do indeed live in a post human epoch?
ReplyDeleteHowever even if we are post human, and may one day become truly post human (genetic augmentation, increased integration with technology and so on) we will still have to think about the framework with which we are constructing and how it will effect existence for other networks of consciousness.