Introduction
Technology is an issue which Heidegger resolves to question in his article, The Question Concerning Technology. In doing this, Heidegger reminds humans to reflect on movement of thought that happens in any perplexed questioning more than the mere words that form part of the questioning. This will ensure that the context of questioning is heard and determined.
Heidegger explores an array of claims that prima facie, produces weird outcomes that hold humans, entirely making them unaware. Consequently, he explores the essence of technology in itself is not technological. Thus, this drives him to examine technology, and more fundamentally, the essence of technology.
The Question Concerning Technology – Discussion
Heidegger does not restrict certain qualms as a result of rapid expansion of technology, and with the connected speed with which the global network of technical tools are breaking up distance and condensing the once immense, mystifying and obstinate earth to a more controllable global village. However, Heidegger is dismayed to see parishes and communities being substituted by a global culture and global Gemeinschaff; for example, he cites the parish pumps politics as a remnant of the past (Kaplan 9).
Philosophical Thinking of Technology
Heidegger claims that it is not a surprise to humans that anything which is often taken for granted will become a significant basis of alarm; that is, what seems to be self-evident or unproblematic is a sache. Heidegger poises after insistent zeal.
In this context, Heidegger claims a series of conventional methods where technology is less or more harnessed to be exhaustively understood. Though, these seem ways of understanding technology, Heidegger cites some flaws on them and suggests other shortcomings such as; they fail to capture or touch on what he views as the essence of technology.
Heidegger demonstrates his mature philosophical jargon claiming his thinking is by finding a way he wishes. This is by using the unterwegs language (Kaplan 38). Heidegger explores the question concerning technology by embracing the term extraordinary. This is the thinking line in which he augments his thinking.
However, why is Heidegger using ‘extra-ordinary’ when describing technology? Heidegger wants to relay traditional approach and most endemic of human impulses, that is, the desire to question after things and to satisfy human curiosity. In a nutshell, Heidegger uses this term as a philosophical impulse to erase doubts, or interrogates the actions of what human ordinarily assume as the explanation.
Perhaps, Heidegger sees that humans merely amass knowledge in relation to something in which they have no prior information. By using adjectives, Heidegger provides humans with a hint to reflect.
Since humans tend to accomplish something which at one level is ordinary but another level subverts much of what they view as ordinary, thus this leads them to the “extra-ordinary” or extra-mundane. Heidegger likens the extra -ordinary actions to the old records as those encompassed in the occident of human deliberation confronting the world in which they found themselves.
Essence of Technology
In questioning technology, Heidegger develops a free relationship with it. He alleges that this relationship is free when it establishes an essence of human existence. Besides, he alleges that technology should not be mistaken as the one already meaning the essence; the essence of something is not the same thing in itself (Kaplan 56).
Heidegger offers an example of a tree to illustrate the essence of technology. He shows that in thinking of the essence of trees, what pervades every tree cannot counter all other trees among them. Hence, this is similar to technology: the essence of technology is by no means anything technological (Kaplan 10).
Heidegger claims that any disposition in regard to technology is either deceptive or inadequate. However, the inadequacy of all delusions is to embrace technology as neutral because this conception, in the present society, humans embrace homage and forget the essence of technology (Kaplan 11).
Heidegger demonstrates that humans generally believe and apprehend the essence of something by being self conscious and adhering to or retaining initial encounter from the onset. Heidegger poses the question: ‘what is it?’ This perhaps proves to be the question of all questions. Heidegger attempts to explore the question by explaining technology a means to an end, and it is a human tool.
The answers he gives seems intrinsic to each other as they illustrate the notion that technology is a tool under human disposal and it prefigures the conviction of facilitating various ends on which humans envisage or have designs. He explains that technological tools possess an equipmental directionality which is intrinsic in the manner humans envisage them. Further, these tools deliver a hand character of human quotidian world, helping them to do perfunctory tasks and routine movements.
Anthropological and Instrumental View of Technology
In response to the question ‘What is technology?’ Heidegger seems to exhaust blend anthropological and instrumental definitions of the concept. In his explanation Heidegger illustrates that technology is instrumental. This is because humans use different tools to advance objectives and remove all challenges (Kaplan 27). He further illustrates that it is not less than an anthropological term, because the technology denotes a network of equipments and tools at humans’ disposal and as such, it signifies a human activity in a broader sense (Kaplan 23).
These descriptions are fitting. However, Heidegger insists that they are fairly correct. The correctness of the instrumental definition of technology is more correct as to agitate humans to carefully asses it. The instrumental definition serves to obscure more than it reveals. It erases the differences that are fundamental under leveling perception of what is basically constitutive.
Heidegger claims that the difference created is the inequality between the old apparatus, conveniences of primitive handiwork and the products of modern technological age. He cites airplanes radar stations and hydroelectric plants provides “means” to “multiple” ends in this context. Heidegger obliges that they hardly guarantee pervasive assurance as they are different in the degree rather than kind from ‘the older handiwork technology” (Kaplan 15).
Heidegger alleges that in embracing modern technology as a means to an end, humans are cheated into false assumptions that it is something they can bring under their control and master as it supports their efforts to accomplish certain ends (Kaplan 16). However, this is not the case; there is possibility that technology is not something that is not of human being design and control.
Although this seems contradictory, Heidegger explains that the notion might appear to be consistent as the technology entails securing various ends through means and that it does not necessarily entail that human control or master it. The definition is fitting; however, it is not the ‘round, unvarnished,’ truth of technology (Kaplan 18).
Technology and associated devices involve human activities and is tailored to accomplish or facilitate various human desires and needs by providing means to securing both. Hence, to achieve this goal, it involves all human activities.
Heidegger implies that the implication of anthropological definition must encompass instrumental definition of technology because all human actions seem to be of the sake of something, that is, they are teleogically tilted (Kaplan 20). Hence, the prospect of tangible and controllable field of inquest lies with the concealment within the instrumental definition of technology.
Modern Technology
Heidegger suggests that modern technology is not a creation of human action established out of the autonomous. Thus, humans are accountable when it comes to the issues that manifests in technological activities leading to the “call of un-concealment” (Kaplan 58). Hence, any human action at any time in human history does not exist in a vacuum of a sham sense of sovereignty but involves human beings being directed into the unconcealed.
The un-concealment of the un-concealed has come to pass whenever it calls man forth into methods of revealing what allotted to him (Kaplan 59). Thus, if human accept this, they are obliged to view any modern activity which they would associate with present technological doings such as observing, investigating, among others that perhaps, ensnare nature as an area of its own conceiving (Kaplan 60).
Conclusion
In His article, Heidegger demonstrates that technology is not the criticism of another intellectual Luddite. Heidegger, rather, shuns the lure of demonizing technology and propagates a more ominous myth. He opts to reflect on the issue and trail a contour of questioning until he understands what holds to be the source of this notion.
Heidegger views that the notion, which is omnipresent and common in everything a human being do and say, merits Sein itself; thus, it enjoys the illustrious and unmerited standing of self-evidence.
Works Cited
Kaplan, David M. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Print