The Question Concerning Technology- Martin Heidegger
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 Page nos. 1-5
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Aparna Nampoothiri
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 1 Heidegger clarifies his intention in presenting this paper right at the beginning, where he reiterates the connection between the titular words, “questioning” and “technology”, and proceeds to demonstrate why such an endeavour needs to be undertaken and how it can be performed. The first paragraphs lay the foundation for the entire paper, clarifying Heidegger’s motivation and laying the grounds for the quest to view technology as not merely an accessory to human progress, but as an entity of its own; an introspection he believes is urgent in his times, the mid-20th century, and also one that is crucial in the current context of the digital era of the 21st century. Heidegger proposes a free relationship with technology to understand the true essence of technology, an understanding that will then enable us to separate the truth behind technology from its instrumental value. This free relationship lets us explore the ways in which technology’s essence connects to human existence. He asks the primary and apparently innocent looking question “What is technology?” It is important to note that “is” is the most important factor to be reckoned with in this question, and that it repeats throughout the paper. The “is” which is variously described and translated as essence, presence, reason or being is that which, according to Heidegger, is the truth of an entity, and he seeks the same about technology. He starts this process of revealing by stating the two conventional and correct ways of looking at technology: (a) “technology as a means to an end” (b) “technology as a human activity.” Both these definitions belong together and constitute the understanding of technology in the ways through which it presents to human beings in their immediate surroundings. Such an “instrumental” and “anthropological” view of technology is characterized as a “contrivance” by Heidegger. The term contrivance, in its present definition, is understood as something that is artificial or “the act of intentionally arranging for something to happen by clever planning”. It seems Heidegger’s use of the term doesn’t stray much farther from these connotations, because in the subsequent paragraphs he goes on to explain the means through which one can reach the essence of technology, when he introduces concepts of “setting-in-place”, “ordering”, “Enframing”, and “standing-reserve”.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Heidegger cautions us about the instrumental and anthropological approaches to technology since that occludes the way to evaluating technology as a thing unto itself, one that carries a value separate from its usefulness. This value is the essence, the quality that pervades all substances which lends them their uniqueness, at the same time being within and outside the substance, as he explains through the example of the tree. Hence, Heidegger concludes that “the essence of technology is by no means anything technological”.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 However, instead of completely rejecting the two pronged definition of technology, Heidegger shows us a way to reach the essence by undertaking an enquiry into these very definitions, plunging deeper into the connotative meanings of the terms within them, urging the reader to re-evaluate and hold these definitions to ontological scrutiny. He enquires, “What is the instrumental itself? Within what do such things as means and end belong?” and finds the answer to be that “a means is that whereby something is effected and thus attained” and that “whatever has an effect as its consequence is called a cause”. This answer brings us to the term causality, which Heidegger describes as a fourfold concept: (1) the causa materialis (2) the causa formalis (3) the causa finalis (4) the causa efficiens. These four causes, belonging at once to each other, show the way through which they become responsible for “bringing something into appearance” or “let it come forth into presencing”. This process of coming forth or presencing is regarded by Heidegger as “poiesis”, the act of creation or the process through which something blooms into presence. He calls the highest form of “poiesis” as “physis”; “the arising of something from out of itself.”
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 After this in depth and exhaustive introspection, Heidegger brings us back to the key issue of focus: essence. The four forms of causality, along with the act of revealing, brings about an unconcealing of something that was hidden, which enables one to access its essence while in the process of this revealing. Heidegger makes a strong claim here, about understanding technology not only as an instrument and a means to an end, but also as “a way of revealing”.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
Bhavya (Pg 6-10)
Heidegger makes a distinction between episteme and “techne” by emphasizing upon the two different ways of revealing themselves even though they refer to “knowing” in the larger sense. Technology here is a mode of revealing or “aletheia” (Greek term for revealing) and modern technology differs from handcraftsmanship in the manner of its revealing. Modern technology is revealing but in a much more acute sense. The “bringing forth” or poesis transforms into a sense “challenging forth” which is nothing but a chain of interlinked processes. In this latter process, energy is unlocked, transformed, stored, distributed and finally switched about anew. The mode of revealing in modern technology forces nature to supply energy so as to respond to man’s beck and call for his needs. The example of the Rhine river is provided where the man’s focus undergoes a paradigm shift from the river itself to it being the source for the power generator. For instance, the manner of natural resource exploitation is achieved through the act of “setting upon” where the earth reveals itself as a say, coal mining district. This mode of revealing stems out of the current age’s social desire for instant gratification. As per this need for instant gratification, man always desires for “standing-reserve” which is more than mere stock. In other words, the object is no more an object for its own sake but simply exists for the function it serves. This sense of revealing of an object as simply standing-reserve challenges-forth the presencing of specific tools for our usage of the same. In the idea of standing-reserve, the object in question disappears into the “object-less-ness” of the standing reserve which is like a black hole that does not leave behind any remnants. Man challenges-forth everything in nature including man himself (HR). At the same time, he is not merely a standing-reserve as he has also some amount of control on this process due to his wielding of technology and the role he plays in driving it forward. Heidegger goes on to talk further on the reason behind such modes of revealing i.e. challenging-forth. He posits that the problem lies in the notion of “enframing” which is simply the manner in which one enframes everything that surrounds him; it is a mode of perceiving and categorizing objects and this pertains to a specific manner of thinking about the world. The term “enframing” is used as an extrapolated term from the original meaning of “gestell” which implies frame/skeleton. Enframing is a way of revealing essence of an object that strives towards the process of gathering which in turn pushes the man to reveal the real. In other words, technological activities only respond to this driving need of challenging offered by “enframing”. This manner of enframing falls prey to the calculative, measured way of estimating nature. Modern sciences represents and pursues nature from this stand-point of knowing which appears to be an ally to the idea of standing-reserve and its manner of enframing objects around man.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 Srinjoy (Till pg 15)
¶ 11
Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0
Heidegger states that when one is discussing about ‘techne’, two things are important:
Firstly, techne does not simply correspond to the ‘doing’ and the ways of the ‘doing’ of the craftsmen, additionally techne encompasses the mentalistic and the fine arts. In other words he is of the opinion that techne has a belongingness to poiesis : techne has a component of bringing-forth. Extrapolating this point, he goes on add that the more important point relating to techne is that it is linked to episteme i.e it is a way of knowing.This ‘knowing’ provisions an opening up – a way of revealing.
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 According to Heidegger, the determining factor in techne lies in its connection with the episteme: the mode of revealing and not in the mode of manufacturing (the bringing forth : the manufacturing).
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 0 Even though this important connection between the techne and episteme is made, Heidegger goes on to posit that this mode of revealing only applies to the artisan and handcrafted objects of the ancient world and enabling the connection with relation to the modern world undergoes a change. It is less of ‘bringing forth’ and more of ‘challenging forth’ (a term used in the context of invoking and instigating). Modern world which is more technological is closely related to the science of physics: the overarching element of calculated exactness, and in this technological mode of revealing humans are involved in the sectors of ordering, control and efficiency. In the ancient world (techne as poiesis : humans were involved only in the manufacturing part).
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 Next, he goes on to connect this technological mode of revealing with nature by stating that this mode of revealing “”puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such” (pg 6). Nature is disposable and its resources are interchangeable and at our disposition to serve our needs and interests – nature is made as a standing reserve in the modern technological time :
¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0 “The revealing that rules throughout modern technology has the character of a setting-upon, in the sense of a challenging-forth. That challenging happens in that the energy concealed in nature is unlocked, what is unlocked is transformed, what is transformed is stored up, what is stored up is, in turn, distributed, and what is distributed is switched about ever anew. Unlocking, transforming, storing, distributing, and switching about are ways of revealing. But the revealing never simply comes to an end. Neither does it run off into the indeterminate. The revealing reveals to itself its own manifoldly interlocking paths, through regulating their course. This regulating itself is, for its part, everywhere secured. Regulating and securing even become the chief characteristics of the challenging revealing.” (Pg 7)
¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 0 In addition to nature (which is self revealing) transformed into a standing reserve, Heidegger goes on to say that human beings are also included in this ‘standing reserve’ and post making this connection he begins his commentary on ‘enframing’ being the essence of modern technology :
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 “Enframing means the gathering together of that setting-upon which sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve. (Pg 10)
¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 Where do we find ourselves brought to, if now we think one step further regarding what Enframing itself actually is? It is nothing technological, nothing on the order of a machine. It is the way in which the real reveals itself as standing reserve. Again we ask: Does this revealing happen somewhere beyond all human doing? No. But; neither does it happen exclusively in man, or decisively through man. (Pg 12)
¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 0 Next, Heidegger goes on to connect ‘enframing’ and freedom with relation to man’s role in the essence of modern technology:
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 “Freedom governs the open in the sense of the cleared and lighted up, i.e., of the revealed. It is to the happening of revealing, i.e., of truth, that freedom stands in the closest and most intimate kinship. All revealing belongs within a harboring and a concealing. But that which frees – the mystery – is concealed and always concealing itself. All revealing comes out of the open, goes into the open, and brings into the open. The freedom of the open consists neither in unfettered arbitrariness nor in the constraint of mere laws. Freedom is that which conceals in a way that opens to light, in whose clearing there shimmers that veil that covers what comes to presence of all truth and lets the veil appear as what veils. Freedom is the realm of the destining that at any given time startsa revealing upon its way.” (Pg 12 – 13)
¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 0 The essence of freedom is at its core unconnected with the will of man and also not linked to the causality of the willing made by man. In the process of man being the orderer of the standing reserve, there is a supreme danger. This supreme danger has two parts:
¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 0 The paradox of the belief in man that in the present technological age they only encounter themselves everywhere all the time versus the truth that man never encounter only themselves. Man is a contingent truth and not an absolute necessary truth in the enframing.
¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 2. Due to this paradox, the supreme danger that technology is concealing the truth of the contingent revealing in the enframing (the essence of modern technology)
¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 Note – All quotations from http://www.psyp.org/question_concerning_technology.pdf
¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0
¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 0 Section 16 onwards
¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 0 Shivani
¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 The essay is mainly consist of three arguments: technology is not an instrument but a way of comprehending the world, technology is not a human activity instead it transcends human control and technology constitutes the “highest danger” when develop the technology to se only through technological thinking. He defines technology in philosophical terms. He argues that “technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology. when we are seeking the essence of tree, we have to become aware that which…persuades every tree, as tree is not itself a tree that can be encountered among all the other trees.”(1) Similarly, he further elaborates the essence of technology: “the essence of technology is by no means anything technological. This one shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive…the technological, put up with it or evade it…whether we passionately affirm or deny it. And we are delivered one it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral.”(1) In the essay, he has theorised the interaction between human and technology that how we regard technology and relate ourselves with it. It is our perception of technology which constitutes the central concern of the essay. In the last section, he continues to elaborate the term “essence” and argues that the traditional understanding of essence does not seem to apply to modern technology. Transcending the traditional philosophical assumptions, he discusses the German writer Goethe to reinterpret the traditional model of essence and uses his term to ‘endure permanently’ and ‘to grant’ to create new model of essence as combination of the concepts of enduring and granting.(16). He reformulates the concept of essence to explain the interaction between the human mind and technology. He suggests that there should be harmony between development of technology and nature. His overarching argument is that we usually think of technology as an instrument for getting things done. He argues that such understanding is superficial as we tend to miss the essence of technology. The essence of technology is inseparable from our existence. It is also the mode of existence.
¶ 29 Leave a comment on paragraph 29 0 The instrumental thinking about technology is based on our assumption about ‘causality.’ If we begin to think causality as factors responsible for creating new forms of existence only then we can understand how the essence of technology is associated with human existence and perception. Further, he deals with the question of engaging with technology both as potential danger and as the saving power. He suggests art as an alternative to instrumental thinking. He returns to the ancient Greece where the concept of techne which includes both instrumentality and fine arts e.g poiesis. He confers that technology has shared the root of techno with practice of poesis. It was technology revealed which was once beautiful for the poetics of fine arts. It is the realm of fine arts, where we can practice the questioning of technology in order to reveal the truth which technology conceals in itself. He describes a classical Greece in which art was not perceived as an independent entity instead was a unifying energy that connected religious life, political life and social life into an organic whole. For him, the art of ancient Greek culture manifested the human mind’s sense of connectedness with all forms of existence. art emerged from humanity’s “stewardship” of all existence. He suggests that poetic orientation of technology enable the humanity to perceive the essence of technology and provide alternative way of thinking to the prevailing instrumental thinking which tends to perceive technology only as an instrument. For Heidegger, the poet depicts the world as it is or as it reveals itself and hence expresses the true form of the world. For him, art’s connections with the world are different from technology’s relationship with the world because art is merely concerned with measuring and classifying. Rather art attends the whole process of unfolding the human existence. To perceive technology through its essence, we need to draw on poetic vision to perceive our existence. Through such poetic vision, we can enter into a free and comprehensive relationship with technology which constantly redefining our lives.
¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0 The essay is a philosophical discussion on the transforming interaction between humanity and technology.In the essay he pioneered a new mode of thinking about technology. The essay contains some significant radical ideas which are still relevant to our understanding of technology, and its transforming power in changing the human existence and the role of art in offering us a poetic vision to perceive our world organically not mechanically.
Arnapurna Rath
Is there a true “essence” of technology? Is there a possibility of challenging Heidegger’s premise?