Class #26: Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology”



Heidegger begins with defining what technology is. Technology is a means to an end and is a human tool. He is concerned with understand the essence of technology. He believes the essence of technology is by no means anything technological. We are missing out on the “essence” of technology because we have grown to not take notice of certain aspects of the technologies we use. Technology is a mode of revealing; it comes to presence in the realm where revealing and un-concealment take place, where truth happens. Heidegger speaks of truth, aletheia, and the un-concealing of the essence. Modern technology does not look to nature for its resources but looks to manipulate nature instead. Scientist is at the forefront of this. Heidegger makes it clear that he is not against technology, however he is searching for what makes modern technology different. He argues that modern technology, in its mutual relationship of dependency with modern physics, is also ‘revealing’. However, the revealing of modern technology differs from that of earlier, non-machine-powered technology. For example the old windmill uses natures breeze to operate.  In this way, we are challenged by modern technology to approach nature “as an object of research” to reveal or “order the real as standing reserve”. Heidegger refers to this as enframing. Enframing is the essence of modern technology.
I believe the shift from non-machine powered technology to advanced technology has caused a shift in how we use and abuse nature. Before modern technology, humans still valued nature to a certain extent to work in unison with non-machine technology. However today, with the mechanical a computerized world were in and further evolving into, nature doesn't play a distinct role in this relationship anymore. This may have caused us to devalue nature, and therefore exploit it for our own gains. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more