Heidegger, M. (2003). The Question Concerning Technology. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition (pp. 252-264). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Technology and its essence are not equivalent.
Two definitions of technology:
1. Technology is a means to an end (instrumental), but this does not show technology’s essence.
2. Technology is a human activity (anthropological).
Heidegger contends that both of these principles of technology are untenable.
Four causes that relate to technology’s essence in traditional thought:
1. Causa materialis – the material or the matter out of which a silver chalice is made.
2. Causa formalis – the form or the shape into which the material enters
3. Causa Finalis – the end, the sacrificial rite in relation to which the required chalice is determined as to its form and matter
4. Causa Efficiens – which brings about the effect that is the finished, actual chalice, in this instance, the silversmith.
Heidegger’s causes (modes of occasioning):
1. Hyle – The material of the chalice.
2. Eidos – The sacred vessel is also indebted to the aspect (eidos) of chaliceness. In common speech – the outward aspect that a visible thing offers to the physical eye.
3. Telos – Circumscription as a sacrificial vessel tying the object to the ritual.
4. No greek term – The silversmith is responsible for uniting the three causes to bring about a chalice.
Poesis – “A bringing that brings what presences into appearance….Not only handicraft manufacture, not only artistic an poetical bringing into appearance and concrete imagery, is a bringing forth.
Physis – Poesis in the highest sense.
Revealing or bringing-forth gathers within itself the four modes of occasioning (causality) and rules them. Domain contains means, end, and instrumentality – the fundamental characteristic of technology.
Techne – belongs to bringing-forth, to poiesis, it is something poetic. Revealing, not manufacturing.
Techne and episteme both mean to have a full understanding of something, to be an expert.
Modern technology (MT) does not unfold into a bringing-forth in the sense of poeiesis. It is no mere human doing.
Challenging happens when energy in nature is unlocked → transformed → stored → distributed → switching about, which are all ways of revealing. These things are in reserve.
Because man is challenged more originally than are the energies of nature he never is transformed into mere standing-reserve. If man meditates and strives, he can find himself brought into the unconcealed.
Modern physical science begins in the 17th century.
Machine-power technology develops in the second half of the 18th century.
Modern technology is historically early (from an “essence holding sway within it” perspective)
Causality is shrinking into a reporting…of standing-reserves and resources. (go Tech Comm!)
MT lies in enframing—the way the actual reveals itself as a standing reserve.
“When we once open ourselves expressly to the essence of technology we find ourselves unexpectedly taken into a freeing claim.”
Man is endangered by destining. Nowhere does man today any longer encounter his essence.
Technology has a mysterious essence, but it is not dangerous. The essence of technology, as a destining of revealing, is the danger. (?) Where enframing reigns, there is danger in the highest sense.
“Enframing is a way of revealing that is a destining, namely, the way that challenges forth.” Regarding the essence of technology, enframing is what endures.
The unfolding of technology contains the possible rise of the saving power.
The more questioningly we ponder the essence of technology, the more mysterious the essence of art becomes.
_________________________
In this example, does the silversmith bring the three causes together to make a sacred vessel or does that require the church, the acceptance of society for “sacredness,” and the agreement of society that the church is tied to the sacred? Doesn’t the silversmith just make a goblet to specifications and the church makes it a chalice? Is this physis, is this veritas, is this enframing, of is this granting?
Heidegger’s work reminds me of Kant’s argument in Critique of Pure Judgment about how something was more beautiful if it had no purpose, if it’s only reason for existing was to please the viewer. I argue that functionality added to an object’s beauty. A sports car could be beautiful and fast – thereby increasing it’s intrinsic value and beauty. Does technology add beauty? There are certainly arguments and examples against technology adding beauty (Heidegger’s view of the Rhine).
I realize that I am part of an English Department, but I am uncertain of the validity of technology arguments proven by statements made by poets (Holderlin – p. 261) and “The poetical thoroughly pervades every art, every revealing of essential unfolding into the beautiful.”
What is the propriative event?
No comments:
Post a Comment