The Promethean Gift

The Tragic Double-bind of Modern Technology

A Thesis Presented
To the Faculty of Philosophy
Department of Humanities

College of Arts and Letters

Department of Humanities
Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

For the degree of Bachelor of Arts
Major in Philosophy

by:
Raymund Christopher C. Armeña
2005-022174-1

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

March 2013
 Table of Contents

Introduction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1-10

Chapter

I – “Retrieving Heidegger” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------10-47

Part 1: The Regional Ontology of Dasein

Being------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

The Ontological Difference;

The Fundamental Difference between Being and beings-----------------------------------------------15
Dasein------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15

Dasein’s primary constitution; Being-in-the-world-------------------------------------------------------17

Thrownness and Projection;

Temporality as the Meaning of the being of Dasein-----------------------------------------------------18

Vorhandenheit and Zuhandenheit; Care as the being of Dasein---------------------------------------20

Care and Verfallen-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25

The Inauthentic Self: The They and the Everyday Averageness of Dasein------------------------26

Being-towards-death, the Call of Conscience,

and the Authentic Self-being of Resolve--------------------------------------------------------------------28

Authenticity and Inauthenticity: The Distinction between Dasein and Da-sein----------------33

i
 Part 2: Heidegger’s Philosophy of Technology

The Question Concerning Technology------------------------------------------------------------------------35

The Instrumental and Anthropological Definition of Technology-----------------------------------36

Tekhné: Technology as Bringing-forth-------------------------------------------------------------------------36

Gestell: Modern Technology as Challenging-forth--------------------------------------------------------38

The Supreme Danger-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------39

The Saving Power---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40

Part 3: Connecting the Dots

Connecting the Dots -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41

II— “Pathmarks”---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------48-59

Prometheus and Lucifer, the Unsung Heroes of Mankind----------------------------------------------49

Lao-tzu and Heidegger---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------53

Ideological State Apparatuses-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------55

Technological Rationality----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------56

Paul Virilio and the Dionysian Yes to the Technological Question----------------------------------58

III— “The Tragic Double Bind of Modern Technology”--------------------------60-72

Dasein and Technology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------62

ii
Dasein and the Challenging character of Modern Technological Systems-------------------------67

The Ruling Elite and the Turning of the Technological Machine-------------------------------------68

Da-sein, Flat Ontology and the Return to a Genuine Technological Revealing-------------------70

IV— “Conclusion” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------73-75

Bibliography ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------77-80

iii
This is a song for Prometheus and the Bringer of Light.

And to us later borns

Reminiscent of Icarus flying too high

forgetting that the sky and the sun
are not his friends
Having lost touch of the ground
of the soil, and of the earth
He plunges to his death
As the gaping mouth
of a nameless sea swallows him

And to those yet to come

Oh how these forgotten heroes wait for you

To retrieve them
To unbind and redeem them
Remember how to save
How is it to ‘save’?

To those who’ve heard the call

Be reminded,
You should have hearts that are younger than the night
To once again touch the flame
To once again see light

or

To invoke the words of the poet

“Come o fire, eager we are to see the day!”

iv
 “La science a fait de nous des dieux avant même que nous méritions d'être des homes.”

“Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men.”

– Jean Rostand

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought
with sticks and stones.”

– Albert Einstein

v
 Introduction

This thesis is an exploration of Martin Heidegger’s Philosophy of Technology,

with hopes to ground it in the very heart of his Fundamental Ontology 1. The author

wishes to interrogate Heidegger regarding the elucidation of what, for most part, is the

most urgent yet basically untouched question of our time; that of technology. 2

The significance of a particular study may be gauged by the urgency of the

problem of its concern and by the effect it will bring about to the reader and the

commencement of the disciplines. In these two respects it may be said that this study is

of a great import, for its main area of concern tackles questions that has great bearings

in deciding the future of Humanity (i.e., the survival or extinction of the Human

species) and the way on how we, as Human beings, ought to live. As was to be shown

below, the questions that the author wishes to answer in this thesis is not merely

concerned with the problem of a particular group of people or the survival of a

particular individual but that of the specie at large. Thus, the author believes that this

study is of grave importance not just for a particular group of people, scholars and

philosophers but, ultimately, for the whole of Humanity. This study may serve as an

1 Particularly in the Regional Ontology of Dasein

2 Although it may be said that Heidegger himself has already took a similar project on his own, it can
fairly be said that although his project was outstandingly proficient it remained unheeded, leaving one to
feel that such questioning needs to be revived or feel obliged, in Heidegger’s word, to retrieved it back
from oblivion and bring it out, once again, in the open region of thought.

1
eye opener of some sort and may pave the way for the further investigation and the

eventual remedy in the problematic yet overlooked areas of concern. Hopefully, it

would result to the rethinking in the way we use our Rationality and the re-evaluation

of certain types of technology so as to ascertain whether they are in service of man’s

survival or the catalyst of his own destruction. For only after such can we determine

what particular technologies deserve to be cultivated further or dubbed unworthy of

further development.

“Come O fire, eager we are to see the day. “3

Man takes pride on the fact that he, among all the species, possesses the gift of

rationality and consequently the freedom from the purely vegetative and sensitive state

of existence that is to be found among plants and animals. He alone is endowed with

this very precious gift that has also been the very reason why he was able to establish

well organized cities and live somewhat above that which nature dictates 4. Due to the

conveniences and advantages that his city life provided him he was able to engage

himself with occupations and disciplines that is not merely exercised for survival’s sake

vis-a-vis., politics, philosophy, together with the arts and sciences. But this gift of

rationality, this gift of freedom, this Promethean gift of fire proved to be a double-edged

3 Friedrich Hölderlin, The Ister

4 In some cases even control and bend nature according to his will!

2
sword that can be used either in services of his survival or as the catalyst of his own

extinction.

This becomes clearer if the problem is approached in the right perspective. On

one hand we can see how the advancements made by medicine, agriculture and

engineering greatly improves the way of life of the Human being not to mention how it

ultimately help secure the survival rate of the specie. On the other hand, the damages

that modern technology causes to nature are rapidly accumulating that it has became a

major threat to the ecological harmony of nature thus also threatening the survival of

species, with Human Beings as no exception. Modern Technology can either help

Humanity prolong the existence of their specie or to hasten the process that would lead

to their demise. In the present situation, obviously, the case leans closer to that of the

latter.

There seems to be a paradox here, how can something so magnificent and

precious such as the gift of Rationality turn out to be a threat to our survival? Shouldn’t

Reason or more particularly Technical Rationality or Rational Technicity aid the

survival of our species and in maintaining the conditions of Human existence? Here,

humanity is brought face to face with a problem of great importance. But if this problem

is so great and urgent why is it that solution to it was rarely thought of? Obviously

there is something wrong going on. Something wrong in the way Humans utilize and

3
harness the great power of this so-called gift. For without doubt this is not what ought

to have been, given such a magnificent gift.

Over the course of their relatively short history, Humans have been able to

deviate from nature with the help of technology and the disciplines that was made

possible by it. This deviation they have been doing so, non-stop and with such vigour,

that most of the times they forget that they are a part of nature and that they will always

be so. According to the French Philosopher by the name of Bernard Stiegler, the history

of technological development can be divided into five epochs wherein the interval

between technological raptures (i.e. technological breakthroughs) drastically shortens

starting from millennia to centuries to decades to years. First was the discovery of fire,

then that of the wheel, and so on… all these happens with considerable intervals

between them (thousands, hundreds, and tens of years or so). But during the modern

period, the industrial revolution wherein the steam engine was invented, these intervals

drastically shortened and gradually vanishes that today newer and newer technologies

are being developed in a daily basis 5. And as we should all know by now, every

invention, every innovation, and every discovery is done in order for man to deviate

even further and have greater control of his surroundings. But the more we try to alter

nature and bend it according to Human will, the greater the damage we inflict to it.

5The Ister. DVD. Directed by David Barison and Daniel Ross, (Black Box Sound and Image, Fitzroy, 3065
Australia), 2004

4
 Think of the effects that technologies have dealt to nature, the invention of plastic

that takes a very long time to be degenerated, the death of rain-forests and natural

bodies of waters, air pollution, green house gases that leads to the phenomenon of

Global warming and the depletion of non-replenishable natural resources such as oil

and other fossil fuels, not to mention the impending threat of a nuclear war. It would

seem that with the help of technology and the economic systems that it help make

possible, a system that pretends to but doesn’t actually care of the effects of its choices

as long as it can secure a lion’s share of the profit, Humanity have engineered its own

destruction. It occurred to the author that perhaps climate change and the extinction of

particular species (the Human species as no exception) is bound to happen and will

naturally occur over time due to the ever-changing natural conditions of the planet

Earth and the process of natural selection. But instead of using their gifts, their

capabilities to halt or postpone the coming of such inevitable events, what Human

beings have been doing so far is nothing but the hastening of the process that would

lead to their demise.

Nowadays technologies are being developed in such an astounding rate that

Human beings and culture, for whom these technologies maybe of use, are unable to

cope up. Furthermore, it poses a great threat for the survival of nature and that of the

species, especially now that it is seemingly slipping away from the grasps of Human

control.

5
So here our problem reveals itself; “Reason which is the very characteristic that

differentiates us, Human Beings from other animals, turned out to be the greatest

threat to Nature, consequently to the survival of the species and ultimately, to

ourselves.

Or in a more technologically applied sense:

“Technology, which is the most obvious manifestation of the gift of Reason, turned

out to be the greatest danger to men and to nature”

Upon the revelation of the major problematic a number of questions that also

needs to be answered arise:

1. What do humans mean when they refer to the word ‘technology’?

2. How did the ancient Greeks understand ‘tekhné’ from where the word

‘technology’ originated?

3. What is the original essence of ‘technology’ according to the ancient

Greeks?

4. What is the difference between the Technology of the ancient times and

the Modern Technology of today?

5. What is the relation of Dasein with how Modern Technology ended up the

way it is today?

6
 6. What do humans have to do to reverse or at least lessen the degenerative

effects of modern technology to people, culture and nature?

Following also from the revelation, is the setting upon of the objectives that this

thesis should attain.

1. To show how Technology, which is the most obvious manifestation of the

gift of Reason turned out to be the greatest danger to men and to nature?

2. To show how Heidegger’s Philosophy of Technology stems directly from

his ontology.

3. To shed light on the problem of technology and prove that it is not merely

a problem of the technical realm but more fundamentally that of the

philosophical.

4. To enlighten the reader about the gravity of the technological situation of

our time.

5. And finally, to revive the questioning that Heidegger himself has started.

Humanity takes pride that among all of the species, they alone doesn’t live for

survival’s sake, and is endowed with the gift of rationality. Well it seems that Human

existence is not in the very least driven by survival, for if it is they would have been the

preserver of nature, of the earth wherein they dwell, which is tragically not the case.

How can it be that Humans, gifted and privileged ones, who claims to be above all

7
species when it comes to intelligence and understanding fails to see and understand

what the instincts of animals have been trying to maintain, the survival of that

particular specie.

The first chapter of this thesis, which is divided into two parts, is entitled

“Retrieving Heidegger”. The first part will be, as the title suggests, a retrieval; a

discussion of Heidegger’s philosophy. In here, the author will be discussing his very

own reading and understanding of Heidegger’s philosophy and his concepts

particularly those which are found in Being and Time vis-à-vis., Dasein, the World,

Vorhanden and Zuhanden, Care as the being of Dasein, and the distinction of

Authenticity and Inauthenticity as the two possible mode of Dasein’s existence, these

concepts will be acting both as an introduction to Heidegger’s thoughts and at the same

time as a springboard wherefrom the author will launch the discussion of Heidegger’s

Philosophy of Technology wherein concepts such as the two modes of revealing that

technology may be in; the Genuine Bringing-forth as it is in the originary sense of the

ancient Greek “tekhné” and the aggressive Challenging-forth that modern technology,

such as that of the present time, has come to adopt will be discussed in detail. The

second part of this chapter will be the discussion of how the author plans to employ the

concepts discussed in the first part and how they are related to each other.

8
 The second chapter which is entitled, “Pathmarks” will deal mostly with the task

of revealing the grounds upon which the project is thought of and constructed upon. It

will be shown here the reasons for the upbringing of the problem and its relation to

other literature that point towards the same problem (i.e. the problem of technology).

To retrace the history of the problem of technology the author will conduct a retelling of

ancient myths such as the Promethean myth so as to see how technology was seen by

the ancients. The following discussion about the deep and striking similarity between

Lao-tzu and Heidegger opens up the reader to the oriental interpretation of Heidegger’s

thought which the author hopes supplements his main discussions on the matter.

Chosen articles from a wide array of sources such as the “A Companion to the

Philosophy of Technology”, “Globalization, Technology, and Philosophy” and the

works of other authors such as, Herbert Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man”, Louis

Althusser’s “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” will also be analyzed closely

so as to either show their connection with the major problem or as a way to justify the

author’s position regarding the matter. The last part will discuss what Paul Virilio

thinks should Humans do in order to finally be able to answer the question concerning

technology.

The third chapter, “The Tragic Double-bind of Modern Technology” will show

how the author arrived at Dasein as the sole factor that decides whether technology will

be leaning towards the Danger or the Saving Power. It is here that we will show how

9
we traced the mode of revealing that technology will adopt, whether it be a genuine

bringing-forth or that or a challenging-forth, to the prevalent mode of Dasein’s

existence; Authenticity or Inauthenticity. It will be shown how the mode of Dasein’s

existence (Authentic or Inauthentic) will also dictate what type of technology that

particular Dasein will support (Bringing-forth or Challenging-forth). It will also be

discussed in a larger context; that of the society. Showing that the social-historical

consciousness or the dominant mode of existence of a particular group of Daseins in a

particular society directly influences the type of technological revealing that will thrive

therein (that of the Supreme Danger or the Saving Power).

The final chapter will be the presentation of the conclusion and

recommendations as to what can be done regarding the problem of Technology.

Retrieving Heidegger

“Likewise, the essence of technology is by no means anything technological. Thus we

shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive
and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it”6

– Martin Heidegger, the

Question Concerning Technology

6
Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, in The Question Concerning Technology and
Other Essays, Trans. William Lovitt (New York: State Garland Publishing, INC., 1977 ), 4

10
 This chapter is the author’s interpretation of Martin Heidegger’s

philosophy, especially his analysis of Dasein and his philosophy of technology, both of

which the author wishes to employ for his own purposes. What follows is the

discussion of the concepts found within “Being and Time” and the essay, “The Question

concerning Technology”, acting both as an introduction to Heidegger’s thoughts and at

the same time as the point of departure wherefrom the author will launch his analysis

of the current state of modern technology. This Chapter is divided in two parts with the

first part further divided into two sections. The first section of the first part will be

devoted to the notions and concepts that are found in Heidegger’s magnum opus, Being

and Time. While the second section will discuss his philosophy of technology

particularly those found in the essay, The Question Concerning Technology, with

occasional hinting on concepts that are found in other related essays. The second part of

the chapter will be a preliminary presentation on how the author plans to employ the

concepts discussed in the first two parts in preparation for the third chapter where the

author will be presenting his analysis.

Part 1: The Regional Ontology of Dasein

Being and Time

His magnum opus, Being and Time, catapulted Martin Heidegger into the

mainstream of twentieth century philosophical circles, particularly within that of

11
Continental Europe. This monumental work bears great significance and exercises a

profound influence in a wide variety of disciplines such as philosophy, hermeneutics,

anthropology, and psychology that perhaps Macquarie and Robinson was spot on

when they dubbed it as “the most celebrated philosophical work which Germany has

produced”7 in the twentieth century. Written during the 1920’s in Germany, it can

fairly be said that after more or less 90 years after its conception, Being and Time is still

an important read for philosophers and scholars as it is to the casual reader who seeks

to understand the mystery of the Human. Written in a manner that rivals the

complexities of Kant and Hegel, reading Being and Time is accompanied by a series of

inevitable bewilderment, mystic wonder, vivid drunkenness and a simultaneous feeling

of victory and defeat. Just what is it that makes Being and Time so seminal and at the

same time so controversial that one who reads it will be affected as such that after the

said reading he or she can only agree with it or disagree but never to be indifferent to it?

What follows is a discussion of the main concepts that is to be found in Being and Time

particularly those of Being, Dasein, the World, the distinction between vorhandenheit and

zuhandeheit, Care as the being of Dasein, verfallen (the falling-pray of Dasein to the

things of his care), the average everydayness of Dasein and the two modes of Dasein

(authenticity and inauthenticity).

7John Macquarie and Edward Robinson, Preface to Being and Time by Martin Heidegger (New York:
Harper Perennial, 2008), xxiii.

12
 Being

“Why are there essents rather than nothing?”8

Heidegger’s main project in Being and Time was the retrieval of the question of

the meaning of Being. He argued that the question of Being is the question that

sustained the philosophizing of the ancient Greeks, this was from Anaximander and

Parmenides to Plato and Aristotle, but after which was overlooked by the scholastics

and the moderns in such a fashion that today after two millennia of philosophical

tradition one cannot even begin to ask the question of the meaning of Being “without

being accused of an error in method” 9, what more to make it a theme of a philosophical

inquiry. So what do we mean by Being? According to Heidegger, as was also realized

by Aristotle, Thomas, and Hegel, Being is the most universal and at the same times the

emptiest of all concepts. This seeming resistance for a definition justifies the traditional

misconception that the question that asks about its meaning doesn’t require to be asked.

So that today, as it is during the last two millennia, the question of being has been

forgotten and was not made as the theme of any serious philosophical inquiry.

8
Martin Heidegger, An Introduction to Metaphysics, Trans. Ralph Manhein (London: Yale University Press,
1987), 5.

9Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, Trans. Joan Staumbaugh (New York: State University of New York
Press, 1996 ), 2.

13
 Dr. Werner Brock wrote in his account of Being and Time that,

Being cannot be comprehended as anything that-is; it cannot be deduced from

any higher concepts and it cannot be represented by any lower one; Being is not
something like a being, a stone, a plant, a table, a man. Yet Being seems somehow
to be an evident concept. We make use of it in all our knowledge, in all our
statements, in all our behaviour towards anything that “is”, in our attitude
towards ourselves.10

Although Human beings live in an understanding of what they mean by Being and that

it is somewhat connected to every concept they understand and grasp, the concept of

Being remains incomprehensible. It does not mean a particular entity nor a

characteristic of an entity such as hardness, coldness, or lightness and yet an entity

without being in not an entity. It is impossible for something to ‘be’ without being as

long as it is something. As Taylor Carman said in his foreword to the Macquarrie and

Robinson translation of Being and Time, the sentence “Water exists” and “Water boils”

may look grammatically the same in the surface level but is actually very different and

misleading. We can think of non-boiling water without any problem but we cannot

think of non-existent water. Non-boiling water is water plain and simple but how about

non-existent water? Thus, the question of the meaning of Being is a question of what

and how it “is” to-be.

10
Martin Heidegger, Being and Existence, Trans. Dr. Werner Brock (London: Vision Press LTD, 1956), 26-
27.

14
The Ontological Difference; The Fundamental Difference between Being and beings

The main cause for the forgetfulness of the question of the meaning of Being lies

in the fact that philosophy, particularly metaphysics and ontology, have failed to

acknowledge the difference between Being, “the originary foundational source of

disclosed and discoverable knowledge” and beings, “the ordinary conception of what

makes a thing as it is, or that of which it is understood as something with a positive

value”11. According to Heidegger, metaphysics 12, together with the sciences, have

remained fixated upon the discovery of the essences of beings, of entities, but have

forgotten the primordial distinction between the being of these beings and the being of

Being which makes all these beings possible by acting as its ground. Later on it shall be

discussed how the ontological difference is rooted and only accessible through the

essence of Dasein but for now it seems that this will suffice. So now, what and who is

Dasein?

Dasein

In his quest to find the meaning of Being, of what it means to-be, Heidegger

draws attention towards a peculiar being on whom his being is an issue. This being is

11
Virgilio A. Rivas, Heidegger and the Paradox of Human Decision, in Philosophy: A History of Man (Pasig,
Manila: Unlad Publishing Company, 2008), 173.

12
Metaphysics, for Heidegger, is any discipline that appropriates beings or entities in their being and tries
to `enframe’ and encapsulate their manifold meanings within a particular framework or an all embracing
paradigma.

15
what he calls Dasein13 (literally being-there in German). According to Heidegger, if the

meaning of Being is to be found it would be via a being that bears both ontic and

ontological priority over other beings, a being on whom an understanding of Being

essentially and pre-ontologically belongs. As was said above, Human beings live in an

understanding of Being although the meaning of Being remains veiled throughout their

lived understanding of what it means. So it is Humans or Dasein to whom an

understanding of Being belongs. Heidegger wrote, “Dasein is ontically ‘nearest’ to itself,

ontologically farthest; but preontologically certainly not foreign to itself”14. Dasein is

ontically nearest to itself because it is itself in each instance but ontologically farthest

due to the difficulty that Dasein faces when trying to access itself.

The ontological priority of Dasein over other beings that is unlike Dasein is based upon

the fact that,

being in a world belongs essentially to Dasein. Thus the understanding of being

that belongs to Dasein just as originally implies the understanding of something
like ‘world’ and the understanding of the being if beings accessible within the
world. 15

So what does it mean if Dasein is that peculiar being on whom its own being is an issue,

the being that bears the ontic and ontological priority over other being unlike it? It

13Dasein is Heidegger’s term for Human Beings and in the scope of this project, Dasein and Human
beings must be taken to mean the same thing.

14 Heidegger, Being and Time, 14.

15 Ibid., 11

16
means that, via an analysis of the basic constitutions of this being, the grounds upon

which the further elucidation of the question of the meaning of Being lies may be

brought to light. If it is true that an understanding of Being essentially belongs to

Dasein then perhaps this being which Heidegger termed Dasein, which in each case is

mine and never that of the other, is the keystone in unlocking the rubric mystery of

Being, of what it “is” to-be.

Dasein’s primary constitution; Being-in-the-world

Dasein exists. And more importantly existence [ek-sistenz] essentially belongs to

Dasein. Other beings that are in the world don’t exist the same way that Dasein does.

These things which Heidegger termed vorhandenheit and zuhandenheit16 are merely

objectively present within the world. They do not exist. But this must not be taken to

mean that they are non-existent in the ordinary sense of the word instead what these

things possess are mere objective presences, this is how existence is an exclusive

characteristic of Dasein. Being-in-the-world as the primary and most fundamental

constitution of Dasein is based upon the fact that Dasein exists and must be understood

as a unitary phenomenon, as denoted by the hyphen between “being”, “in”, and “the

world”. This is also the reason why for something like Dasein to exist it is of necessity

16 Vorhandenheit (literally present at-hand) are things that are naturally found within the world; e.g. trees,
mountains, stars, and the likes. Zuhandenheit(literally ready at-hand) are things that are found in the
world that are made by the hands of Dasein; e.g. buildings and tools.

17
for something like the World to exist as the precondition and ground for the existence of

a being like Dasein. This “world 17 is that whereto Dasein transcends so as to be what it

is”18. The “in” in this being-in-the-world exhibits a connection that is of a totally

different nature as with the “in” of things that is unlike Dasein; of things that are

vorhandenheit and zuhandenheit. When one says that “I am `in’ my room” one cannot

mean it the same way when one says that “my bed is `in’ my room”. Dasein is “in” a

room not solely in the spatial meaning of the word “in” instead it means a kind of

“dwelling”, “to sojourn” 19. So the being-in-the-world of Dasein means that Dasein’s

existence in-the-world is essentially a being-in together with things that are

vorhandenheit and zuhandeheit.

Thrownness and Projection; Temporality as the Meaning of the being of Dasein

Dasein is thrown into the world with neither his asking nor consent. The

relatively short span of the life of Dasein is stretch between two events, that of birth and

that of death, between Being and Nothingness. There is no way to undo the moment of

one’s birth as there is anything to do to prevent the coming of death when it comes

knocking on one’s doors20. And so in this sense, Dasein is thrown. He is thrown

17 The term ‘world’ is not always equal to the planet Earth.

18 Martin Heidegger, Being and Existence, Trans. Dr. Werner Brock (London: Vision Press LTD, 1956), 41.

19 Ibid., 42

18
between these two events without his choice by some unknown powers and was left

alone to fend for himself. This is the greatest accident that has befallen Dasein. And

because Dasein is thrown in a world that is always already there, this world, which is

always already a world with its own pasts, a history; it is said that Dasein is always

already within history. This is what Heidegger calls the historicity of Dasein. Because

Dasein possesses historicity he is predetermined21 to live his life in continuation of the

history that he arrived at. This is how Dasein arrived at the world, thrown into a

present that is naturally and predominantly directed towards a future and ultimately

predetermined by the past. The three ecstasies [eks-tasis] of Temporality, the past, the

present, and the future (the future time and its essential relationship with Death will be

discussed in more detail in the latter parts of this section) is in a constant interplay

when thought touches upon the life of Dasein which have been shown to be within a

history that is always already there before Dasein’s thrownness as being-in-the-world.

Heidegger said that, “In its factual being Dasein is always is as and `what’ it

already was.”22

20
Although it can be said that Dasein may chose to hasten it with his choice of life-style and may,
ultimately, choose to do it by himself by committing suicide.

21
But not in the strict sense of the word ”predetermined”, Dasein is predetermined in the sense that he
enters life, initially, in the mode of a continuation of what he arrived at.

22
Heidegger, Being and Time, 17.

19
 This is why Dasein is essentially and naturally projected towards the future.

Dasein lives a life of anticipation, of running-forward-in-thought. This running forward

(in thought) signifies an anticipatory way of life, of thinking. Dasein is not just plain

thrownness, he is instead a thrown project.

Vorhandenheit and Zuhandenheit; Care as the being of Dasein

It has already been shown that the being of Dasein is essentially different from

those that are to be found in things unlike Dasein; things which are merely objectively

present within the world. And although it may already suffice for the scope of this

project it is perhaps of good measure to delve a little bit deeper so as to avoid any

misunderstanding and misconceptions that may arise in the latter parts. The obvious

have already been said, that Dasein is of a totally different nature as is with things. This

comes as no surprise as Human Beings have lived, both individually, socially, and

historically, in a sense of self-righteous self-worship in the majority of their existence in

the world (i.e. the planet Earth). Protagoras once said that “man is the measure of all

things” and it can fairly be said that a huge part of the relatively short history of

humans in this planet was lived based on this “homo mensura” principle. The next

discussions will show more clearly how and why this is so. The author will seek to

understand the reason as to the why and the workings as to the how Humans live by

this ancient principle.

20
 Humans live, dwell, and sojourn in the world. Within this world are a multitude

of beings that are not human, beings that are not Dasein. These things are what

Heidegger called vorhandenheit and zuhandeheit. They unlike Dasein are worldless beings

as they do not possess a possibility of possessing something like world. Instead they are

in the world as inner-worldly beings. This means that they are in the world as mere

objective presence. The essences of things are easily ascertainable. One can easily tell

what it is that makes a “tree” a tree. Its “treeness” is obvious and we can easily

determine what it “is” that pervades all trees, the “thingliness” that have the nature of

“treeness”; a thick trunk, a certain height, hardness of the wood that is in turn capable

of being turned into a table, chair or etc.. This is also true of tools. When one looks into a

table one can easily tell what it is that makes something a “table”. The “tableness” of a

table is in its usability, its being available as an elevated even plane that can be used as a

space for eating and writing etc... Thus the essence of things that are of the nature of

vorhandenheit and zuhandenheit are most of the time already pre-given. 23 Although

this pre-givenness is more obvious in the case of zuhandenheit as they presents together

with them certain usability, an in-order to.

But what of Dasein? Does the same obvious analysis work when trying to

determine `that’ which makes Dasein a Dasein as have been done in things that are

unlike Dasein; of things that are vorhandenheit and zuhandeheit? So what is it that

23 Pre-given in an ontic and pre-ontological sense.

21
pervades all human beings? What is this peculiar characteristic that makes Human

Beings so different from other beings? Heidegger pronounces that, “The essence of

Dasein lies in its existence” 24,

And that,

Dasein is always its possibility. It does not `have’ that possibility only as a mere
attribute of something that is objectively present. And because Dasein is always
essentially its possibility, it can choose itself in its being, it can win itself, it can
lose itself, or it can never and only “apparently” win “itself” 25

So instead of the predetermined and pre-given attributes and characteristics, as it is

found in things that are vorhandenheit and zuhandenheit, what Dasein possesses are

possible and potential ways of being. One cannot tell if a child will be good or evil at

any given time of his life but one can be sure that these are within his potentialities. He

can be good or bad or perhaps live somewhat undetermined and indifferent to these

constructs. And even if he becomes good in a certain time of his life one cannot truly be

sure whether he’ll remain good, say, in another day. Because Dasein is essentially its

potentialities his life is a never ending process of choosing, of becoming.

So if Dasein is essentially its potentialities, its possible ways of being, what is its

being? Heidegger argues that it is that of “care” (sorge). Care is the being of Dasein

24 Heidegger, Being and Time, 40.

25 Ibid., 40

22
because as being-in-the-world Dasein lives his factual life in the constant mode of care,

in the constant mode of caring for the things of his care, his life-projects. If the word

“care” is to be analyzed as in the statement “Please take care of your belongings” one

will see that “care” may be understood to mean that “I will make sure to take notice of

my belongings so that they may be safe from getting lost or being stolen”. So care may

be taken to mean some kind of safe-guarding, to take full responsibility of, to fix. Dasein

is always busy taking care of his self, of things, his jobs, projects, and aspirations, his

loved ones, his enemies, his favourite T.V. shows, a particular computer game, his

thesis, etc... The lists can go on forever and Daseins or Human beings wouldn’t run out

of things that they in-care about. Human beings live out the extent of their relatively

short lives always----already in this way. Even neglect or the refusal to take notice of

something can be understood as a way of caring although in a negative sense as long as

it is deliberately done, or in this case not-done.

With “care” as the being of Dasein the ontological priority of things that are

zuhanden from those things that are vorhanden becomes ever so clear. This is mainly

due to the fact that Dasein is always in the mode of caring, Dasein is always-already in-

care of something. In his caring, Dasein is always projected upon certain goals and

projects; Dasein is always attuned in the mode of in-order to. These zuhandeheits have

in their beings a particular in-order to, a certain usability in-order to accomplish a goal.

Heidegger explains that, “equipment, having come into being through human making,

23
is a being particularly familiar with human thinking.” 26 And that, “The equipmental

quality of equipment consists in its usefulness”27

A house for example, may be defined as a structure built with wood, straw or

stone or a combination the three in-order to be a dwelling and act as a protection from

the climates. The hammer is a piece of equipment consisting of a wooden, plastic or

metal handle and a rubber or metal head in-order to let man strike nails down, which

can be stretched into, in-order to fasten a shoe from its sole in-order to make it a viable

candidate as a foot gear in-order to be able walk without injury in-order to go to this place

in-order to do this particular project which in turn will enable him to do this particular

thing in-order to... Daseins live their lives in the always-already in-care of something,

and because care and in-order to shares a very close relationship so do Dasein with

things that have in-order to’s in their very beings. This relationship is of a very concrete

nature. Take for example in the case of a tree, when one looks at a tree one does not

simply see it as something that is vorhandenheit, which is why it is exceptionally rare to

look at the tree and appreciate its “treeness”. Most of the time what Dasein sees in a tree

is the material, i.e. wood wherefrom a table or a chair can be manufactured from, so

even in things of Nature Dasein is still in search of a possible in-order to, a means

towards an end, a way to accomplish his practical pursuits and life-projects.

26
Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art, in Basic Writings, Ed. by David Farrell Krell (New York:
Harper & Row Publishers INC., 1977), 160.

27
Ibid., 161

24
Care and Verfallen

Because Dasein’s being is that of care it is very much understandable that he is

very susceptible to become verfallen, to fall prey or be ensnared by the things of his care.

But what does it mean to fall prey and be ensnared by the things of one’s care? Perhaps

a review of the discussions above will be of help in understanding this seemingly weird

phenomenon. It has already been discussed that the being of Dasein is that of care, that

he is in constant caring of things that he considers important. His everyday life is lived

in the constant mode of caring for his life-projects. It has also been said that the essence

of Dasein is unlike the essences of thing that are merely objective present such as those

found in things of nature and in tools. The essence of Dasein, as have been discussed

above, is that of potentialities, of possible ways of being. But if Dasein’s essence is that

of potentialities and his being is that of care, a constant concern for thing that he holds

dear, doesn’t this open up the possibility for Dasein not to realize his utmost potentials?

Heidegger’s answer would have been a resounding yes. And this is what he means

when he speaks of Dasein being verfallen. Dasein falls prey to the things of his care

when these things that he is concerned with limits his capacity to achieve his highest

potential. Dasein’s potential ways of being is held hostage when he falls prey and

ensnared by the things that he is in care of. This phenomenon of being verfallen and

ensnared chokes and closes all types of genuine and authentic lifestyle which then

sustains Dasein’s being inauthentic.

25
The Inauthentic Self: The They and the Everyday Averageness of Dasein

The discussions above have already shown Dasein’s difference and relationship

with things that are unlike Dasein, these things available at hand and useful things are

merely objectively present in the world. So far the question of how Dasein relates

towards other beings that also possesses the same essence, beings that are also Dasein

themselves haven’t yet been touched. Heidegger argues that “the world of Dasein is a

with-world. Being-in is being-with others.”28 But who are these others that Dasein shares

the world with? It is said that these others as long as they are the “real other” for Dasein

are not those whom a particular Dasein may discriminate against and distinguish

himself from, instead these others only becomes the real other if one feels one with

them, if he can identify himself with them, and if he feels a certain belongingness with

them. In fact Dasein can be together with ten people inside a room and be totally alone.

But the everyday other of Dasein is not a definite other, Heidegger speaks of the

identity of this everyday other, “The who (of the everyday other) 29 is not this one and

not that one, not oneself and not some and not the sum of them all. The `who’ is the

neuter, the they.” 30

28
Heidegger, Being and Time, 112.

29
Author’s emphasis

30
Ibid., 119

26
 The “They” dictates what is to be done and what should not be done. What is

socially acceptable, right or wrong, normal or abnormal is within the holding sway of

the they. In this seeming dictatorship of the nameless they occurs a certain levelling of all

possible ways of being, of potentialities and aspirations. Dasein loses itself in the

averageness of the everydayness. When Dasein loses itself in the averageness of the

anonymous they all his responsibilities are taken away from him, he becomes

disburdened by them, and all his actions become generic, as one-like-many; “done the

way they do it”. He does what they do, he eats what they eat, he approves of what they

approve, and he even thinks what they think. In his being absorbed by the publicness of

the they Dasein loses contact with his very being. All possibilities of his realization of his

manifold potentialities and possible ways of beings are obscured and it may forever be

veiled and made unknown to him. This is how the self of the everyday Dasein is the

they-self which is of a totally different nature to that of the authentic self. The they-self

of the everyday Dasein is a self that have forgotten itself 31 and thus loses itself while the

authentic self is the self which has explicitly grasped and thus won itself. But this kind

of being of the they-self of everyday Dasein should not be seen as something inferior to

the authentic-self instead it must be treated as the ground or the springboard upon

which the possibility of gaining and retrieving the authentic-self lies.

31
This is due to the constant and urgent pressures of the everyday, an everyday that is usually
preoccupied in idle talks, gossips, public opinions [doxa] and other superficialities of daily life that
presents itself as something important thus demanding urgency and attention.

27
Being-towards-death, the Call of Conscience and the Authentic Self-being of Resolve

So far the differences of the they-self from the authentic self have been mentioned

but the deeper concepts that are in play behind these terms have not yet been explored.

In the discussions about the world wherein Dasein dwells together with things that are

unlike Dasein, it has been said that the world is the ground upon which Dasein may

transcend to be what it is. But what does this mean? What does it need to transcend?

And towards what does this transcendence aim at? The distinction about the they-self,

the inauthentic self that is within the holding sway of the they, the average everyday

who of Dasein and the authentic self, the self that has come to grasps the totality of its

genuine potentialities and possible ways of being, should give a clue as to what it

means to be authentic and inauthentic. Dasein, as he is thrown as being-in-the-world

into the world, a world the is always already in the sway of the they, is initially, and for

the most part, in the grasps of the anonymous they. It should be kept in mind how

Heidegger firmly maintains that Dasein is essentially its possibilities, its potential ways

of being, how Dasein is capable of choosing itself in its being and thus winning itself or

otherwise may lose itself and only apparently won itself but never actually gaining the

possession of itself. This statement is a clear reference on how the possibility of

authenticity, the potential gaining of genuine self-hood, is threatened and hindered by

the generic and average way of life of the inauthentic they-self. But how does one

become authentic? What are its prerequisites?

28
 In his essay entitled “What is Metaphysics” 32 Heidegger speaks of the distinction

between two particular moods of being that a particular Dasein may encounter; that of

fear and that of dread (angst). Although the mood of dread is very similar to the mood

of fear, dread has a very peculiar characteristic that differentiates it from that of fear.

Fear always have an object as in the statement ‘I fear that spider’ or ‘I fear this will

happen’. Whereas dread on the other hand doesn’t have any object, “its object is always

there yet nowhere”, and this absence of an object further amplifies its effect to the

Dasein in that mood. In dread,”Nothing is revealed” 33 and “Dasein finds itself faced

with the nothingness of the possible impossibility of its existence” 34

In the discussion concerning Dasein’s thrownness, the inevitability of Dasein’s

death and his natural inclination towards the future, his anticipatory way of thinking

and living was already explained. Dasein, as the only being on whom his being is an

issue, has always have the fear of death, the inevitable cessation of his being. This is of

course very understandable because of the natural desire for self-preservation and the

pleasures of life that Dasein have come to know (love ones, aspirations, and worldly

possessions). But this so-called fear of dying is not grounded solely on the phenomena

of death, because most of the time it is not the moment of death or the act of dying that

32
Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics?, in Being and Existence, Trans. by Dr. Werner Brock (London:
Vision Press LTD, 1956), 355-392.

33
Ibid., 368

34
Heidegger, Being and Time, 245.

29
Dasein fears but what lies after it. This fear of death or more precisely the fear of the

‘nothingness’ that comes after it creeps up to everyone at some point of life, especially

when one least expects it and is also the main reason why most people choose to live

the way they do, dispersed in the affairs of the world of his cares. Thus, the author

deem that when Dasein feels a fear towards death he is unaware that what he is feeling

is not just any ordinary fear whatsoever, instead he is already in the mood of ‘dread’

and its object is the “nothingness” that comes after his demise, always there and yet

nowhere, “and indeed Nothing itself, Nothing as such, was there” 35. But what

ultimately lies ahead in the end of the line for every Dasein apart from this ultimate

possibility? And because Dasein is naturally projected upon the future, a future which

ultimately points towards his death, it can be said that death and the nothingness that

precedes it is the ultimate reality which Dasein should come to accept. This acceptance

of one’s finitude of being and eventual projection towards one’s death is what

Heidegger calls the being-towards-death of Dasein and is one of the few ways of

attaining something like the authentic self-being of Dasein. Heidegger insists that,

“Death is the ownmost possibility of Dasein. Being toward it discloses to Dasein its

ownmost potentiality-of-being in which it is concerned about the being of Dasein

absolutely.”36 It forces upon Dasein the concern about its future and possibly about its

35
Heidegger, Being and Existence, 367.

36
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 243.

30
pasts, its true and originary beginning. A Dasein who was able to authentically project

his being-towards-death experiences a fleeting away of all beings, of all purposes and

meanings and thus refrains from the urgencies, banalities, and superficial demands of

the everyday.

Although such occurrence may be said to be accidental and exceedingly rare due

to the veiling that the they imposes and because it is unlikely that one “would seek the

experience of dread or seek to anticipate one’s own death” 37, a Dasein which once

comes face to face with it can never choose to ignore it. No matter what that particular

Dasein do to immerse himself in the everyday affairs of the public 38 the mood of dread

and the question regarding his existence will always be in the background.

But Dasein cannot simply project himself towards his own death, not as long as

he is in the holding sway of the they. The they, as have been shown in the previous

discussions, dictates what one should do, approve, believe, think and how it disburdens

Dasein of his responsibilities. The they disburdens Dasein even of his own death. Death

as the everyday Dasein understands it is always the death of the “other”, it is never an

issue about himself, and it is the they who always dies. And the they, as it is the

uncertain other, is the unknown, the nameless. Death in its mineness, as long as Dasein

37 Joan Stambaugh, Thoughts on Heidegger (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1991), 21.

38 In fact this coming back to the everyday is what naturally follows after such realization

31
is in the holding sway of the they , is not an issue. He is not within the grasps of death as

long as he is and he is no longer when death comes. This is how the anonymous “they

does not permit the courage to have angst about death”39, by sublimating Dasein’s fear

of death and discouraging his projection towards his own death.

In the above discussion regarding Care as the being of Dasein, the center of

attention have remained fixated upon Dasein’s initial caring of useful things and those

that are merely objectively present. It didn’t even come close to discussing the

possibility of Dasein to care for others and ultimately, that which makes this caring

possible, the authentic self-caring of Dasein.

The accidental attunement to the mood of dread and the fleeting away of beings

that an authentic Dasein experiences opens up the possibility for a particular Dasein to

hear a mysterious and rare calling. This is Heidegger’s somewhat obscure notion of the

“call of conscience”. The call of conscience is a call that does not speak. It is a silent call

that addresses Dasein from within. And because it is a silent call, Heidegger argued that

only an authentic Dasein who is free from the idle talks and trivialities of the everyday

may hear it. The caller and the one called may be considered one and the same; the call

of conscience is actually Dasein calling to himself from himself. Upon hearing the call of

conscience, Dasein is brought closer towards the possibility of resolve. Realizing that he

is impinged by Time and that his being is finite, Dasein is humbled by the call. Upon

39
Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, 235.

32
hearing the call Dasein is made aware of the primordial guilt for his very own creation

and corruption of the world40. Only after this awareness of guilt can Dasein truly attain

something like resolve. Also in relation to this awareness is the possibility for Dasein to

realize that he should never try to impose his will to other Daseins and for this reason

opens up the possibility of any morality and care for others. On this possibility Dr.

Werner Brock writes that,”The authentic fellowship of Human beings depends on and

arises from the authentic self-being of Resolve”41.

Authenticity and Inauthenticity: The Distinction between Dasein and Da-sein

In her translator’s preface to Being and Time, Joan Stambaugh tells us of

Heidegger’s personal requests on how the term “Dasein” should be hyphenated

throughout the whole of Being and Time. This hyphen between the Da [there] and the

sein [being] suggests that Daseins or more precisely Da-seins [being-there] possesses the

40
The Sanskrit phrase (Tat Tvam Asi), captures and expresses this relationship between
man and the world in a brilliant manner. Tat Tvam Asi which can be loosely translated in English as
“Thou art that” means that everything that is to be found in the world are but mere human constructs.
Even things of nature such as trees, mountains, and stars can be up to some point credited to human
making because of the overly assertive and obsessive encapsulating and representational thinking that
human beings exercise. This is particularly true in language (how human name things), metaphysics
(how human understands reality), the sciences (how humans discover the essential nature and character
of things) and the manipulative technologies (how humans puts everything within a frame; enframing) of
our time. Tat Tvam Asi is actually a realization and at the same time a confession that everything is our
own making. Such realization forces upon the subject that he (as he is thrown into the world that is
always-already occupied by earlier human beings and thus always-already encapsulated and represented
in concepts) or his humanity is guilty of most, if not all, the problems of the world and is humbled by the
fact that he cannot remedy them all but is only capable of not furthering any of the problem by being
responsible and exercising prudence in all future actions. (See Upanishads)

41
Dr Werner Brock, An Account of Being and Time, in Reality, Man and Existence, Ed H. J. Blackham (New
York: Bantam Books, 1965), 274.

33
capability to stand outside itself. The author did not follow this request by Heidegger

but did not totally ignore it. We chose to keep Dasein, as long as we are referring to the

everyday Dasein, without its hyphen for the following reasons;

1. Dasein as being-in-the-world, as long as he is not consciously aware of this

constitution, is within the holding sway of the they.

2. The hyphen suggests a possible capability of Dasein to stand outside itself but

it does not guarantee this possibility.

3. To stand outside is to be able to conduct eks-tasis, the step back, to live

outside and look towards oneself, to be free from the grasps of the publicness

of the everyday they-self.

4. Thus the hyphenated Da-sein should only be used in the cases of a Dasein

that is already capable of such standing-outside. A Dasein that have reached a

profound self realization and have heard the call of conscience thus have

accepted his finitude of being.

Part 2: Heidegger’s Philosophy of Techology

“Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we

passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible
way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which we
particularly like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of
technology.”42

42
Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, in The Question Concerning Technology and
Other Essays, Trans. William Lovitt (New York: State Garland Publishing, INC., 1977), 5.

34
Martin Heidegger was perhaps one of pioneer in what today may be called a

Philosophy of Technology. The main work to be considered when delving into this area

of Heidegger’s thought is the essay entitled “The Question Concerning Technology”.

Brilliantly encompassing this work maybe it occurred to the author that perhaps a

discussion of Heidegger’s philosophy of technology without atleast touching upon

some concepts that are to be found in the other essays, such as “The Turning”, “The

Thing”, “The Origin of the Work of Art”, “On the Essence of Truth”, and “Building,

Dwelling, Thinking” would be lacking. For these essays share the same directive and in

them we may find a unitary nature. Within these essays, it can be said, is where

something like Heidegger’s philosophy of technology may be found, if something like it

ever existed. What follows is a detailed discussion of the concepts found the “Question

Concerning Technology” with occasional hinting of those that are found in the other

essays. So, what of Technology?

The Question Concerning Technology

The Question Concerning Technology is a short essay published in the 1940’s. It

discusses Heidegger’s concepts about the origin and true meaning of the term

technology, which is according to him, is one of the most urgent problem of our time.

Heidegger approached the problem of technology by way of philology. He believes that

by retracing the original meaning of technology its essence may be revealed and be

35
recaptured in a more originary sense, an essence that today have been forgotten and

lost, in the same way that the meaning of Being have fallen into oblivion.

The Instrumental and Anthropological Definition of Technology

Heidegger opens up his the QCT (The Question Concerning Technology) by

analyzing the prevailing definition of technology, the instrumental and anthropological

definition. In this definition, technology is taken to be a mean towards an end

(instrumental) and at the same time a human activity (anthropological). This definition

is said to be so correct that it even holds true for the modern technology of the present

as it is true to the traditional and conventional technologies of earlier eras. He also

emphasized how these two definitions ultimately belong together as it is undeniable

that positing ends and procuring the means towards their completion are human

activities. In this sense, human beings as long as they set up goals that can only be

completed upon the employment of certain machines, devices, and techniques will not

be able to totally do away with the use of technology. But what is its true essence?

Tekhné: Technology as Bringing-forth

The word technology stems from the ancient Greek word Teknikon, which means

“that which belongs to tekhné”. Tekhné, as the ancient Greek understands it, refers to the

activities and skills of the craftsman and also the arts. For the Greeks, everything that

exists both in nature and through the making of man is revealed through poiesis. Plato

36
tells us in The Symposium, “every occasion for whatever passes over and goes forward

into presencing from that which is not is poiesis, is bringing-forth”43. The existence, or

more precisely the objective presence, of things depends solely of its self-revealing or

through the revealing of man. Primordially everything in nature is concealed or is in

concealment (lethe), and only through the workings of bringing-forth (poiesis) can

unconcealment (aletheia or Erschlossenheit in German44) occur.

In this sense, Technology is a mode of revealing, a way for the concealed to be

unconcealed, a presencing. This can be explained more clearly by way of example. A

table, for example, is something that does not naturally occur in nature. And yet

through the workings of the human it came into being. By virtue of the four causes, the

material cause (the wood), the formal cause (the idea of the table), the efficient cause

(the mental and physical workings of the carpenter) and the final cause (the purpose

that the table will serve upon its completion), something like a table which is originally

non-existent comes into existence. This holds true even with things of nature such as a

flower. The blossoming of the flower is, according to Heidegger, poiesis in the highest

sense because it is through the self-presencing of the bud that the flower exist. This

bringing-forth, according to Heidegger, is the originary essence of technology.

43
Plato, The Republic, Trans. B. Jowett (New York: Double Day, 1989)

44
Aletheia is also the Greek word for Truth (a-letheia; un-concealment)

37
Gestell: Modern Technology as Challenging-forth

It is undeniable that, like the traditional technologies, modern technology also

reveals beings from concealment, so in essence, is still a revealing. But unlike the

traditional technologies modern technology reveals beings by challenging nature, by

putting demands on nature to become something else. Heidegger explains this by

drawing a comparison between the old wind mill and the modern turbines of the

hydroelectric power plant. The old wind mill harness power from the wind through the

turning of its sails but this process is solely left out to the winds blowing with the

natural blowing of the wind left untouched. The hydroelectric power plant on the other

hand being set up to dam the river forces it to supply its turbines with hydraulic

pressure while totally ignoring the natural flow of the river. Another peculiar

characteristic of modern technology is its seeming obsession in trying to store what it

unlocks in nature. This is how modern technology enframes nature, by appropriating

beings in their beings, challenging their very essences to surrender what they can and

store whatever this challenging may yield for it to be available later to be what

Heiddeger calls by the name standing-reserve. In the context of modern technology,

everything is but mere standing-reserve, always available at-hand and orderable

whenever needed. All of this, starting from the primary unlocking of energy from

nature to the eventual use of it to power a particular factory that in turn manufactures a

particular utensil or product and the products employment by man to further a

38
particular goal, ostensibly falls within a frame. This is how enframing (gestell) is the

essence of modern technology. In the context of modern society through the workings

of modern technology, everything is enframed and becomes orderable because they are

always available as mere standing-reserves.

The Supreme Danger

In the discussions above it has been stated that the originary essence of

technology is a revealing that adopts a bringing-forth, of poiesia and modern technology

on the other hand is a revealing that adopts a challenging stance. Although it may be

said that there lies a possibility for man to encounter danger in the originary essence of

technology, modern technology as that which enframes brings man vis-à-vis the Supreme

Danger.

When technology operates in its modern essence of enframing man or Dasein

looks in to and understands the unconcealed no longer as objects or entities but as mere

standing-reserves. Even man himself, in the midst of this objectlessness loses himself

and becomes nothing more but the orderer of the orderable, and ultimately he becomes

himself a standing-reserve. This also leads him to see himself as the lord of the earth,

the sole benefactor of beings, leading him to see everything as mere constructs by

himself for himself. Enframing threatens not only man’s relationship with himself and

other beings but more importantly with this danger that it poses to man’s essence it also

39
threatens man’s possible contact with truth by turning everything into orderable

standing-reserve. This is how technological enframing as the Supreme Danger endagers

man not just physically, but more importantly and essentially in his very core of being.

Or as Hubert Dreyfus puts it, “the danger . . . is not the destruction of nature of culture

but a restriction to our way of thinking—a leveling of our understanding of being”45.

The Saving Power

Heidegger insists that although enframing as the essence of modern technology

endangers man as the supreme danger, it is not technology itself which is the problem

but instead it is the mysterious character of its essence that makes this endangering

possible. By invoking the words of the poet Friedrich Hölderlin, Heidegger emphasizes

that it is also within the essence of technology where man may find his salvation.

Hölderlin once uttered, “But where the danger is, grows the saving power also” 46.

But what does it means “to save”?

According to Heidegger, “to save” means more than just the mere securing of

something from destruction and ruin. Apart from this common meaning of the term,

“to save” may also mean “to fetch something home into its essence, in order to bring the

45
Hubert L. Dreyfus, Heidegger on Gaining a Free Relation to Technology, in Heidegger Reexamined vol. 3,
(New York: Routledge, 2002), 165

46
Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 28.

40
essence for the first time into its genuine appearing 47”. Thus to save is to recapture the

original essence of something, to fetch it back from oblivion and bring it out once more

into the openness of being. In the case of modern technology this saving may mean the

recapturing of the originary essence of technology, the revealing in the mode of genuine

bringing-forth. So that, “the self-same danger is, when it is as the danger, the saving

power”48

So by constantly being conscious of the eminent danger that the mysterious

essence of technology possess and how it currently hold a stance that challenges nature

and endangers man in his very essence, Heidegger hopes that man may harness the

saving power that lurks and thrives silently within the mysterious essence of

technology. Actually, put in simpler terms the saving power that lies deep within

technology’s enduring essence is nothing more than the possibility of technology to

return to its originary revealing.

Part 3: Connecting the Dots

So far the concepts upon which the project will be built upon have already been

discussed. It is the author’s hopes that each and every one of the concept has been

discussed thoroughly and intelligibly. Although it is very understandable that they may

47
Ibid., 28

48
Martin Heidegger, The Turning, in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Trans.
William Lovitt (New York: State Garland Publishing, INC., 1977 ), 42.

41
appear as somewhat fragmentary now, it is the author’s aim to make them appear as

singular parts of a larger paradigm (enframing?). This part of the chapter will serve just

that purpose, it will hopefully show that each concepts discussed until now is very

much interrelated with each other and that it fits securely in one big picture and show

how the author plans to employ them in the third chapter of this thesis.

In his QCT, Martin Heidegger insisted that, “the essence of technology is by no

means anything technological” and that “we shall never experience our relationship to

the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the

technological, put up with it, or evade it 49”. So where does the essence of technology lie

if it is not to be found in the realm of the technological? How and what affects or

influence whether technology will adopt a revealing in the mode of the genuine

bringing-forth or the aggressive challenging-forth? This will be the direction of the

questioning that this project will pursue. Heidegger himself said that the worst possible

way for human beings to be delivered over to technology is when they regard it as

something neutral. But surely no one will contest the fact that technology, like all non-

Dasein beings, is neither good nor evil by nature and that only through human

comportment does it assume such stance. With this being said it would appear that the

essence of technology bears a close relationship with the essence of the Human or

Dasein. This project will try to trace this essential connection between the essence of

49 Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 4.

42
technology and that of Dasein’s so as to show how the essential unfolding or revealing

that technology will adopt is based solely on the mode of being that Dasein lives in.

Technology will reveal things either in the mode of genuine bringing-forth or

aggressive challenging-forth based on the authenticity or inauthenticity of Dasein

respectively. What follows is a comparison between the inauthentic and the authentic

Dasein and how they affect the mode of revealing of technology.

An inauthentic Dasein with all his potential ways of being levelled down

according to the prescription of the they is rendered incapable of the realization of his

primary constitution of being-in-the-world along with his being as care. This leaves him

incapable of authentically caring for himself and others. Because of the constant

pressures and idle talks of the everyday life Dasein loses contact with his utmost

potentialities as a thrown-project limited only and ultimately by death. These urgencies

and banalities of the everyday also leave Dasein unable to project himself towards-

death. He is disburdened of all his responsibilities and guilt, he neither feels responsible

nor in any way guilty of any problem that humanity have inflicted upon itself, others,

and the world. By this veiling and eventual forgetfulness of the Ontological difference

Dasein is trapped in the prevailing mode of thinking of the anonymous they, a thinking

that tries to encapsulate beings in their beings and leads to the enframing of everything

in nature. A thinking that would further the aggression of manipulative technologies

43
that enframes everything and transforms them into mere stocks as orderable standing-

reserves.

An authentic Da-sein on the other hand who was able to realize and understand

his primary constitution as being-in-the-world gains access to his utmost potentialities

of being and the facticity of his being a thrown project. Knowing that he is essentially

care the possibility for caring for his self and of others opens up. Having been in the

mood of dread and is essentially a being-towards-death who have heard the call of

conscience thus humbled by it, Da-sein will renounce all forms of and resists any

temptation to subscribe to idle talks, gossips, and public opinions. He will also refrain

from the urgent demands and banalities of the everyday. Thus being free of the holding

sway of the they. The authentic Da-sein who understands the Ontological difference

between Being and beings will detests the primordial fact of its forgetfulness and will

try to avoid any forms of technological thinking that lead to such. With this avoidance

of any form of technological thinking it follows that this particular Da-sein will also

support the recapturing of the originary essence of technology which is a destining of

revealing in the mode of genuine bringing-forth. A revealing that is mindful of itself

and is carried out with utmost care and prudence thus respecting the natural harmony

of things. The following diagram (frame) shows how this relationship works.

44
 Thrown Dasein
Have heard the call of conscience and Still within the holding sway of the they and
is now conscious of his responsibilities subscribes to the prevailing mode of thought
towards himself, others, and the propagated by them. Disburdened of all forms
world thus exercises discretion and of responsibility towards himself, others and
prudence in everything he does. the world he acts carelessly.
Authentic Da-sein Inauthentic Dasein

Bringing-forth Technology Challenging-forth

Respective of the natural order of Still operates within the vicious

things thus refrains from putting turning of the project for human
unnecessary demands to Nature. It immortality. It challenges nature,
only gets what it needs and it knows encapsulates beings and enframes
what it needs. It is mindful and them to become orderable reserves,
prudent in all its actions by being always available for the taking as
capable what Heidegger calls by the mere stocks. It challenges nature
name Seinlassen (letting-be) or wu- through manipulative, calculative,
wei (doing nothing) as in Taoism. and challenging-thinking.

This can be stretched from the case of an individual Dasein towards that of the

larger social Dasein with its effect towards technological revealing also changing its

45
magnitude of effect. For example, a society that is mostly populated by inauthentic

Daseins will most likely propagates the continuation of the current trend of the

aggressive technological revealing of challenging-forth. This is due to the fact that

within such society, the Ontological difference remains forgotten and calculative,

representational, and technological way of thinking reigns supreme. In a society where

everything is enframed Dasein himself is turned into the mere orderer of orderable and

is himself merely an orderable-reserve. Within such society all possibilities of truth and

unconcealment is either veiled or forgotten.

On the other hand, a society that is populated with more authentic Da-seins will

be a society where the Ontological difference is always in the fore front of human

thinking. Within this society, Philosophy together with all the sciences and disciplines

refrains from all types of technological and calculative way of thinking, the very same

thinking that chokes on all possibilities of a genuine revealing. Without the holding

sway of the they to level down all possible way of beings of Daseins, the potentialities of

individual Daseins are disclosed to them making the possibility of gaining self-hood

more accessible. Mutual care or concern also flourishes based on the primordial

constitution of Dasein as being-in-the-world, which is essentially a being-with together

with the mitda-sein of others. As there are more authentic Da-seins than inauthentic

ones, the possibility of unconcealment is also more potent. So is the possibility of

harnessing the Saving Power that thrives within the mysterious essence of technology.

46
 The following diagram (another frame) shows how the first formulation may be

writ large.

Thrown Dasein
Have heard the call of conscience and Still within the holding sway of the they and
is now conscious of his responsibilities subscribes to the prevailing mode of thought
towards himself, others, and the propagated by them. Disburdened of all forms
world thus exercises discretion and of responsibility towards himself, others and
prudence in everything he does. the world, he acts carelessly.
Authentic Da-sein Inauthentic Dasein

A society predominated
A society that favours an
by the anonymous they.
authentic lifestyle and
The possibility of gaining
educates its citizens for
self-hood is blocked
them to realize their full
away by the calls of the
potentials as being-in- Authentic Society Inauthentic Society
everyday.
the-world.

The Supreme
Danger
The Saving Power Bringing-forth < Technology > Challenging-forth

Dasein will be able to arrest and The current trend of the aggressive
eventually reverse the vicious cycle challenging of technology continues
that operates in modern technology. until technology is no longer within
This would ensure the sustenance of human grasps. This in turn would
the environment wherein the world ultimately lead to the eventual
of Da-sein is located i.e. Nature, and destruction of nature and the
the survival of the Human species. extinction of the Human species.

47
 Pathmarks

The theme of the project is the problem of technology and its relation to human

thinking. Under such directives, the first question to be asked is this, what is technology

per se? And how do we understand the thing that we call by the term technology?

In her essay entitled, “Technology and Environment”, Mary Tiles insists that

whenever the terms technology and environment are brought vis-à-vis with one

another it follows that it will be within the divide between man and nature.

“Technology and its development which is for the enthusiasts are the essential
indicator for human progress is also for its critics the vehicle of domination of man over
nature and other men.”50

This dichotomy of views regarding technology is very much understandable and

up to some point may be both considered true. In one hand, it is true that through

technology man was able to deviate from the limits imposed upon him by nature and

thus enabled him to live a more comfortable and stable lifestyle. On the other hand, it

cannot be denied that technology “is the material expression of man’s ambition to

dominate nature, with the subjugated environment the victim of its detrimental

impacts”51. According to Tiles, it is almost impossible to approach any debate

50
Mary Tiles, Technology and Environment, in A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology, Ed. J. K. B.
Olsen (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009 ), 235

51
Ibid., 235

48
concerning these two terms and maintain a neutral stance. What follows is a review, a

looking back, on the path marks that lead the author to his current position regarding

the problem of technology and what can be done with it which he will present in the

next chapter. What follows is the retelling of some myths and ancient scriptures that

seems to validate how technology and human thinking are two intertwined tales.

Prometheus and Lucifer, the Unsung Heroes of Mankind

In the documentary film, “The Ister”52, the French philosopher Bernard Stiegler

retells the ancient Greek myth of Prometheus aind Epimetheus. According to the myth,

Zeus, the king of the Olympian gods, told Prometheus that it was time for the mortals

(i.e. man and animals) to be brought into the day out of their dwelling in the night.

Zeus gave Prometheus the task of distributing the qualities (of essences) . But

Prometheus’ twin brother, Epimetheus told his brother that he wanted to do the task.

Because Prometheus was fond of his twin he agreed to let Epimetheus do the task

instead. But there is a catch, although they are twins they are actually the exact opposite

of one another. Prometheus (foresight; lit., forethought) is a symbol of knowledge and

52
A documentary film that discusses the most basic of Heidegger’s notions regarding the problem of
Technology; should not be confused with the hymn by Friedrich Hölderlin of the same title.

49
of perfect memory, while Epimetheus (hindsight; lit ., afterthought)53 on the other hand

is the symbol of foolishness and faulty memory. Epimetheus carried out the task of

distributing the qualities, he gave the lion its might, the gazelle its speed, the turtle its

shell and so on. He did very well with his distribution that he was able to maintain a

balance of strengths and weaknesses among the species so they are in equilibrium . The

lion is very strong but not as fast as the gazelle , some gazelle got eaten by lions but

some escape to be able to reproduce, Epimetheus’ distribution of the qualities describes

the ecological balance of nature. But as the night approaches, Epimetheus looks at his

basket looking for a quality for the last mortal that he is to bring into daylight , man. But

to his unimaginable surprise his basket is empty, there is no qualities left for man.

Prometheus upon learning his brother’s fault felt gravely sad for humanity and stole

fire from the workshop of the god Hephaestus. He gave it to man to aid him in his

survival, this is said to be the birth of tekhné, of technology. Under the light of the

53 But in the manner of a fool looking behind while running forward

50
Promethean myth, it may be said that technology is that which differentiates Human

beings from all other animals in the planet .

It is different from another and more familiar myth. Unlike in the Greek account

where man was seemingly taken for granted by the gods and fire or tekhné was their

only hope for being this myth tells of how humans are the most special of all creation

and that everything is made for his sake. It goes like this, ‫( יהוה‬YHWH) the creator of

the whole cosmos together with both heaven, earth and everything that resides within

created man and gave him authority to make use of everything created as he see them

fit and accompanying responsibility to act as care taker to all creations. In Genesis 1:26

of the King James Bible, ‫ יהוה‬said,

“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion

over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the

earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

And how He,

“have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every
green herb for meat: and it was so.” (Genesis 1:29-30)

51
Based on this passage, it can be seen how man is made special by ‫ יהוה‬or God by being

created from the image of his creator and by being given authority to rule over the

earth. This shows how man as the creature created from the image of the creator is

above all other creation thus making him privileged and special. Like the Promethean

myth the Judeo-Christian account of creation tells of how humans were able to arrive at

Reason.

It tells of a story on how God gave permission to eat from all trees apart from one

which is located in the middle of the garden. God told them that if they are to eat from

it they will surely die. The Lucifer (Luciferus in Latin, light-bringer) taking the form of a

serpent deceived the woman to eat saying that she and her husband will be like gods

after eating from the said forbidden tree. She invited her husband and they both ate

then it dawned to them they are naked. This is when Human reason or tekhné was born.

This can be drawn in close parallel with the Promethean myth where Prometheus stole

fire from the gods to give it to mankind. Prometheus gave mankind fire the same way

that Lucifer gave them light. This points out how the odds and the greater forces of the

universe are against the birth of human reason and technology such as that anyone who

dares to think otherwise shall be banished to eternal damnation and suffering either

from a free-flowing river of fire or a bird of prey tearing at one’s liver.

52
Lao-tzu and Heidegger

On the opposite side of the globe and on a quite distanced time, the mysterious

sage that is commonly known to most by the name Lao-tzu is said to have preached the

Tao (way or path). The Tao is said not to be a name for a particular ‘thing' but the

underlying natural order of the cosmos whose ultimate essence is impossible to confine.

Tao is the ‘eternally nameless’ and to be distinguished from the myriad of 'named'

things or objects which are considered to be its manifestations. This resistance to being

told or named makes it the eternally real and the origin of all things and how its

mystery can only be realized through being free from the desire of objects. This

formulation is very much in line with how Heidegger seems to understand his concepts

of Being and beings as was explained by his Ontological Difference. This seem to echo

Dr. Werner Brock’s description of how Heidegger understood Being.

Being cannot be comprehended as anything that-is; it cannot be deduced from

any higher concepts and it cannot be represented by any lower one; Being is not
something like a being, a stone, a plant, a table, a man. Yet Being seems somehow
to be an evident concept. We make use of it in all our knowledge, in all our
statements, in all our behaviour towards anything that “is”, in our attitude
towards ourselves.54

Another striking similarity between Lao-tzu and the German was the origin of the

problem they found responsible as to why humanity is having troubles in gaining an

54
Martin Heidegger, Being and Existence, Trans. Dr. Werner Brock (London: Vision Press LTD, 1956), 26-
27.

53
 understanding of the Tao or Being. Things. The multiplicity of beings and humanity’s

lingering fixation in this cosmic ocean of things. This is humanity’s problem and its

origin lies deep on how humans look at himself, at things, and their ontological

predisposition. Lao-tzu was very subtle about this but Heidegger was very much vocal

with it. He often traces the source of all problems of Philosophy, the sciences, and the

whole façade of human discipline to the forgetfulness of the fundamental difference

between the being of beings and the being of Being. And of course their answer, the

realization of this fundamental between Being and beings which would lead Dasein or

man to be finally be able to achieve a state of Wu-wei or Sein-lassen55 (letting-be). As

Soccio wrote in his discussion of Taoism in The Archetypes of Wisdom,

“often translated as ‘do nothing’, the doctrine of Wu-wei is perhaps the

most intriguing aspect of Taoism. Its literal translation is ‘not to act’, but it is
probably more accurate to think of Wu-wei as a warning against unnatural or
demanding action. Natural does not mean common or widespread, but natural
in the sense of healthy, spontaneous and in harmony with Tao. Spontaneity
stands in contrast to calculation, deliberation, and the careful (crafty) weighing of
advantages and disadvantages, profit and gain.” 56

Humans should let nature and other non-human entity take their natural course to be

able to live in harmony with the rest of cosmic creation. Like a windmill that only

makes use of what the wind is genuinely willing to blow contrary to the hydro-electric

Martin Heidegger, On the Essense of Truth, in Basic Writings, Ed. by David Farrell Krell (New York:
55

Harper & Row Publishers INC., 1977), 117-141.

56 Douglas Soccio, The Archetypes of Wisdom (New York. Wadsworth, 2001), 37-38.

54
turbines that dams up the river and challenges it to yield electricity. They should also

be more careful in their usual dealings in life and prefer the natural over the artificial,

the simple above the profound, the few on top of the many, the need before the want

or as the Haring Bastos would have loved to add, “The essence of objects are forclosed

to Humans and other objects which is why the more objects you produce the more

forclosures you are dealing with”.

Ideological State Apparatuses

In the 1970’s paper, entitled “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”, Louis

Althusser argued that for a particular system to continue existing it must be successful

in reproducing the pre-conditions of its existence. These preconditions include the

prevailing mode of socio-cultural awareness or in other words the current mode of

thought of the masses wherein these systems thrive to exists. So if a particular system

aims to reproduce itself it is a must to also reproduce the current mode of thought of

the masses, the very mode of thought that gave rise to the system itself. The I.S.A.’s or

Ideological State Apparatuses, he insists, serves this purpose. When put in relation to

the state of modern technology it appears that Althusser is right saying so. Modern

technology as it threatens Dasein in the level of his thinking makes use of these I.S.A.’s

in propagating itself and the technological thinking that sustains it. These I.S.A.’s,

especially in the case of the communication I.S.A. (mass media and its different

55
 manifestations) and educational I.S.A. (schools, colleges, and universities) can also be

considered technological in themselves not only because they make use of

technological devices but because they employ the use of certain techniques,

paradigms, and systems that adheres to the enframing attitude of modern technology.

Technological Rationality

This type of technological thinking was taken up later by Herbert Marcuse In his

book entitled “One Dimensional Man”. Marcuse made mention of a certain type of

rationality, which he called by the name Technological Rationality. In a manner that is

somewhat akin to Althusser’s social analysis in “Ideology and Ideological State

Apparatuses” he writes that,

Society reproduced itself in a growing technical ensemble of things and relations

which included the technical utilization of men – in other word, the struggle for
existence and the exploitation of nature becomes ever more scientific and
rational... Scientific management and scientific division of labor vastly increased
the productivity of the economical, political, and culture enterprise. 57

This results in a higher standard of living. But ultimately produces,

“a pattern of mind and behaviour which justified and absolved even the most
destructive and oppressive features of the enterprise.” 58

Marcuse insists that, modern society was able to become such a dominating force by

replacing personal dependencies of human beings, such as in the case of the slave on

57 Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man, (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964), 149.
58 Ibid., 149

56
the master and the serf on the lord of the manor, with a dependence on the “objective

order of things. This “objective order of things” is the result of domination the same

time that it is what makes society able to maintain its hierarchic structure. Within the

“objective order of things” everything falls in a frame which is somewhat similar to the

Heideggerian concept of “enframing”.

Enslaved by the system, human beings are dominated and affected in an even

deeper level; in their very thinking. This leads to their further enslavement and

incapacity to think otherwise and look for alternative ways of life. This is very much

understandable as Marcuse himself noticed that,

It is natural only to a mode of though and behaviour which is unwilling

and perhaps incapable of comprehending what is happening and why it is
happening, a mode of thought and behaviour that is immune against any other
than the established rationality. 59

Again it can be seen here how this is similar on how, according to Heidegger,

modern technology threatens man in his very core, in his essence and in the very way of

his thinking. And how perhaps in time, the only acceptable way of thinking will be that

of technological thinking, or in Marcuse that the only type of rationality will be that of

the technical sort.

59 Ibid., 148

57
Paul Virilio and the Dionysian Yes to the Technological Question

On the same note, the French culturist Paul Virilio who is best known for his

writings about technology states that,

Progress is one thing nobody sees as an object for criticism. Yet technology is
the vector of progress and I would say that there can be no art without criticism.
An art lover is at the same time an art critic, since a taste for art implies a certain
quality of judgment. As a lover of new technology art, I totally contest the
objective status accorded to the technosciences.60

Virilio thinks that humans should be fully conscious of their technological

choices for them to be finally able to answer the question concerning technology when

it interrogates them.

Or as Deleuze puts it in Nietzsche and Philosophy,

The yes which does not know how to say no is a caricature of affirmation. This is
precisely because it says yes to everything which is no, because it puts up with
nihilism it continues to serve the power of denying—which is like a demon
whose every burden it carries. The Dionysian yes, on the contrary, knows how to
say no. It is pure affirmation; it has conquered nihilism and divested negation of
all autonomous power. But it has done this because it has placed the negative at
the service of the power of affirming. To affirm is to create, not to bear, put up
with, or accept.61

Thus, instead of passively “sleeping before technology” and letting it be solely

the concern of technologically masterful individuals, Virilio suggests that everyone

60
Paul Virilio, Virilio Live: Selected Interviews (London: Sage, 2001), 149.
61
Gilles Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy (New York: Columbia University Press,
1983), 185.

58
should wrestle with it too, that is to be conscious of the effects of technology to the

human condition. This being conscious of technology begins with analysing the

detrimental qualities of modern technology in relation to both humans and nature that

opens up the future possibility of engaging it in a more open way. “Today we have ad-

men, even experts, who spend all their time saying how wonderful technology is. They

are giving it the kiss of death. By being critical I do more for the development of new

technologies than by giving in to my illusions and refusing to question technology’s

negative aspects.”62 Virilio calls for the conscious Dionysian yes from the masses that

would then engage the question of technology, as he asserts, “not in order to destroy it,

but in order to transfigure it.”63

62
Jérôme Sans, “The Game of Love and Chance: A Discussion with Paul Virilio,” available
at http://www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/vy2k/sans.cfm.

63
Paul Virilio, Virilio Live: Selected Interviews (London: Sage, 2001), 149.

59
 The Tragic Double-bind of Modern Technology

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

–Albert Einstein

Every double bind is a tragedy in itself. A double bind is a distressful dilemma

wherein the person in question is put up between two choices that negates one

another but both needs to be done. A paradox, as the logician would have said,

where the problem seems to have no logical and real solution or in other words, a

no-win situation. Modern Technology, as it is today, is caught up in such a paradox.

And this is what makes the question concerning technology one of the most, if not

the most, thought provoking problems of the present age. So what really is the

problem with modern technology? And what exactly is the question concerning it

interrogates about?

The problems that technology created can only be solved through technological

means, by furthering and improving the technical aspects of manufacturing,

innovating, and so forth. And yet even if the said problems were to be solved a

different problem of the same, if not greater, magnitude will eventually occur due to

the furthering of the technological way of thinking. The double bind of modern

technology presents itself in this way, a vicious cycle that operates at a very

aggressive pace.

60
 But before anything else, the author wishes to clarify that this thesis is neither

anti-technology in any perceivable light nor does it support any attempt to

antagonize technology in any possible way. Like this paper that you now hold in

your hands, Technology is neither good nor evil. It has no intentions by itself; it is

outside the bounds of morals as it is with most things. As was shown in the

discussions in the second division of chapter two, technology may possibly be

considered evil only if it is under the control or caretaking of a human being inclined

to do evil.

The current mode of technology today, though cannot be totally said to be of an

evil nature, creates the possibility for the occurrence of evil. The evils and dangers of

a technologically advance but technologically blind society who is totally oblivious

to the dangers that technology posses, a society that threats everything as mere

commodity, where the age old contradiction of master and slave still persists, from

which the current societies of today is not far from being if not already one. But

technology was not always in this mode, the genuine mode of bringing-forth of pre-

modern technology attests to this fact. Thus, for clarification’s sake the author would

wish to emphasize that, today even in the age of modern technology, not everything

technological or relating to technology should be seen as evil. The thing things, but it

lies outside of the bounds of human morality. Thus, as much as this thesis is

concerned with the technological it is also deeply focused in the study of the human.

61
Dasein and Technology

To be sure, the current problems of technology are one way or the other,

technological by nature. And yes, because they threaten Dasein physically they

demand urgent solutions that must be thought up by people who are at home with the

realm of the technological; by specialists, technicians, and engineers. However, as these

solutions are thought up by technologically thinking specialists within a strictly

technological paradigm, it fails to see the real problem with modern technology.

A deeper reflection on the current trend operating within modern technological

systems brings thought face to face with a problem of modern technology that cannot

be left solely into the hands of technologically masterful people. Keeping this in mind as

the directive of any subsequent thinking about the problem of technology, it becomes

obvious that although most, if not all, of the problems of technology, whether ancient or

modern, is by all means technological by nature—the fact that it is still firmly grounded

and deeply rooted in yet another problem holds true; the problem concerning the

essential mode of being of Human Dasein which is by no means technological.

This can easily be seen if one is to analyze the workings of modern technological

society. As was stated in the earlier chapters, the life of modern Dasein is always-

already entrenched in the technological. He makes use of technology in almost all of his

daily dealings with life. From the moment he opens his eyes early in the morning with

62
the help of his alarm clock to the moment he closes it again late at night after watching

his favourite late night T.V. show. Everything he consumes to sustain and make his

existence in this earth not just possible but a worthwhile passing is either a direct

product of a technological device or the indirect making of a technological system. This

is particularly true of the food and water that nourishes his body, the fabric that clothes

his body, and the dwelling place that protects him from the elements – the most basic of

all his material needs.

During the pre-technological eras, the constant search for food and water

preoccupies the daily life of primitive men. He hunts and gathers for food, again and

still with the help of primitive technologies, the same way that he searches for potable

drinking water. The discovery of agriculture and animal rearing enabled him to put up

permanent settlements, which also paved the way for the development of disciplines

that are not solely concerned with day to day survival.

Nowadays, in the current era of supermarkets and malls, food and water is very

much abundant not in the natural meaning of the term, but in a very sinisterly

convenient and scientific way. Such that a large majority of Daseins no longer need to

produce their own means of survival. Food, water, clothing, and shelter are available

for the ordering. Systematic and commercial farming and fishing enables man to

produce food more than what the population needs, deliver it to remote places by the

63
use of delivery trucks and highly systematic webs of highways, and perpetuate it

almost limitlessly with the help of advance methods of preservation and refrigeration.

At surface level, it can be argued that there is nothing wrong with all these things. Who

would contest the fact that modern technology has helped Human civilization

flourished and made Human life infinitely more convenient over the centuries? As

Heidegger pronounced in the essay “Building Dwelling Thinking” 64, the essence of

building is that of dwelling. Humans build for them to be able to dwell, it makes human

dwelling possible. The farm is cultivated to produce a stable source of nourishment. The

river is dammed, not only to provide a constant supply of potable drinking water but

also to unlock the power it possesses by means of the turning of hydroelectric turbines.

It enables man to live the way he lives today. Modern medicine is also a testament to

this relationship between technology and human dwelling. With the help of modern

techniques in medicine Dasein was able to drastically extend his lifespan and prevent

untimely deaths from formerly fatal and incurable diseases. The current advancements

in stem-cell research holds such great promise in even further prolongation of human

life by employing cell level treatment and the unending rejuvenation of old and dying

cells. So far, it has been shown again and again how technology aids man in his quest

for immortality.

64
See Martin Heidegger, Building Dwelling Thinking, in Poetry, Language, Thought, Trans. Albert
Hofstadter (New York:Harper & Row, INC., 2001)

64
 But what exactly is the problem with modern technology? If it helps man to

survive and makes his life much easier, why even try to problematize it? The obvious

answer to both of these questions would be, as the mainstream environmentalist avidly

protests, is the negative effects of technological advancements with the natural

harmony of nature. The accumulation of pollutants both in land, water, and air, the

destruction of natural rainforests due to the ever expanding project of human

settlements, the untimely extinction of countless species of plants and animals, and the

impending threat of a nuclear war. It is undeniable that all these problems are

somewhat technological because they can be traced, one way or another, on some

project that employs the use of technological systems, techniques, and devices. But once

again the questions that must be asked is this, is it purely the fault of technology that

these problems occur? Or is technology merely an accessory that made these problems

possible? And furthermore, are these physical threats of technology the only problem or

is there a more vital problem that is left undiagnosed thus becoming ultimately more

threatening?

The problem with modern technology, as was repeatedly hinted in the above

discussions, is actually rooted in the fact that it is treated as something purely

technological; that it is a problem exclusive within the realm of technology thus can

only be solved from within. It has already been shown how all technological

advancements are done by man purely for the sake of man, which brings us back to the

65
Instrumental and Anthropological definition of technology, that it is a mean employed

by humans towards an end projected by humans. All these technological devices,

systems, and techniques makes man’s dwelling possible. If technology is for man by

man according to this definition, wouldn’t it at least be of good measure to try and

analyze the relation of the problems of technology with the problem of human

existence?

In Being and Time, Heidegger shows the distinction between the two modes of

existence of Human Dasein, the authentic and inauthentic. In his QCT, Heidegger gives

a similar distinction between the two types of technological revealing, the technological

revealing of genuine bringing-forth as it was found in ancient technologies and that of

an aggressive challenging-forth as it is found in modern technologies. The author

doesn’t think that this striking similarity in the formulations of these concepts is of an

accidental nature. And so he asks, would an authentic mode of Dasein’s existence, his

being Da-sein (a Dasein that has realized his being-in-the-world thus capable of

standing outside), warrant his support or atleast a preference for a technological

revealing in the mode of a genuine bringing forth? If so, wouldn’t the origin of all

subsequent problems of technology be traced towards the distinction of Dasein’s

authentic and inauthentic mode of being?

66
Dasein and the Challenging character of Modern Technological Systems

An inauthentic Dasein who is always busy with the things of his care and

preoccupied with the urgencies and immediacy of the everyday seldom finds time to

think of his potentialities apart from what the anonymous they prescribes, thus

rendering him incapable of realizing and materializing these other potentialities. He

lives his life like as they live theirs. All his aspirations and potential ways of being are

levelled down and lost in this ocean of the same. His way of life, his taste, his choices,

even the very way he thinks conforms to what the anonymous they approve of. One

look at the current state of modern societies seems to testify for this. Modern humans

are living their lives according to some trend set by an invisible force, by the holding

sway of the anonymous they.

In direct relation to the social problems of modern societies, Modern technology

thrives in the mode of an aggressive challenging-forth of nature. With everything

levelled down into mere orderable reserves, things lose their value in the face of being

enframed. Everything is available yet nothing is truly accessible. As was touched upon

in the essay “The Thing”, enframing makes Dasein’s understanding of the thing lose its

contact with the thingly character of the thing. Up to some point even the relationship

between man to man becomes distorted into this enframed understanding of being so

that man to man relations becomes almost impossible and humans treats his fellow

67
human the same way that he treats an orderable thing. Everything is just mere stock.

From the water he drinks, the food he eats, the clothes he wear, the books he read, to the

services of other human beings… orderable stock reserves that is always available for

the ordering of the orderer.

In a society such as this the possibility of a genuine bringing-forth of technology

is lost. So is the potential to live an authentic life. With everything levelled down

according to the prescription of the anonymous. But who is this anonymous they to

whom the everyday Dasein is much a slave? The term was used numerous times above

but was still never truly discussed. So who is “anonymous they”? The anonymous they is

actually the summation of traditions, and common place beliefs, that has come to

harden out of time, it also includes the hegemonic ideology of that time and the class

that benefits from such hegemony, which is most of the time an elite ruling class.

The Ruling Elite and the Turning of the Technological Machine

It cannot be contested that the schematics of modern economic systems are very

much under the control by the elite ruling class. But how does this scheme exactly

work? In the previous chapter, it has already been shown how modern economic

systems, if it aims for continuity, must succeed in reproducing the preconditions of its

existence. On the same note an elite ruling class wants to protect the status quo so as to

remain seated at the seat of power. How? By reproducing the preconditions of their

68
being seated as such, first by maintaining the traditions and beliefs that favours their

hold to power, and second by controlling the RSA’s and ISA’s of a particular society.

With the physical threat of the RSA’s and the, ultimately more subtle and grave,

intellectual control that the ISA’s provide the elite ruling class succumbs the majority of

the population. By their almost absolute control of the material condition of the majority

of the population, the power of the media and educational institutions; the elite ruling

class was able to subjugate the masses and dictate how they should view things, think,

and aspire. This is how Capitalism mastered the schematics of modern technology. By

adapting itself to the mysterious essence of technology it was able to influence the mode

of revealing that technology inclines into and like an invisible hand, sway the masses

according to their wishes. What’s a better market than a society that buys what it does

not need and for the mere sake of being `in’, where everything is but mere stock and

orderable reserves available always at hand in time of the ordering, with value and

possible profit always in mind? It challenges nature through the endless process of

unlocking power, collecting new material, consumption, and building up waste, which

in turn hurt the ecological balance of planet Earth. This is the turning of the

technological machine that now thrives in modern technological economies. A turning

that have been so aggressive and vicious that it have became a problem that can no

longer be put aside because it endangers the ecological balance of nature, and the

survival of the Human species. The current trend in the turning of this technological

69
machine shows how, through techno-capitalistic systems, Human beings have

railroaded their selves towards extinction.

Da-sein, Flat Ontology and the Return to a Genuine Technological Revealing

An authentic Dasein or Da-sein is a Dasein that have realized his primordial

being as being-in-the-world. He also have discovered that what lies in front of his

accidental birth which he did not ask nor want is the inevitable possibility of his

eventual cessation, his death which is just as absurd as his birth. His acceptance of these

absurdities enables him to embrace them with open arms thus transforming his being

into a being-towards-death. Being-toward-death frees the said Da-sein from his being

entangled with the things of his caring, of the urgencies and petty demands of the

everyday, thus enabling him to stand outside himself and perform some sort of

stepping back, as was shown by the hyphen. This standing outside one’s self gives Da-

sein wider perspectives about life, the world, things, and other Daseins. He realizes that

he is not the sole benefactors of all beings, and that actually the cosmos barely cares

about him and the little blue planet he calls home. This experience of the call of

conscience humbles and urges him to live life in a much slower pace and practice more

prudence in future dealings with life. And only through the perspective of this Da-sein,

an ecstatic being capable of standing outside of himself can the Ontological Difference

be properly approached.

70
 In the second chapter of this study, Heidegger’s concept of “Ontological

Difference” and how it is only possible when approached from the sole perspective of

Da-sein have been touched upon, although very lightly and lacking depth. Now the

author wishes to return to this very important part of Heideggerian philosophy in an

attempt to answer the set of problematic that have been laid by the above discussions.

So what is this “Ontological Difference” whose forgetfulness of, is what Heidegger

deem as the primordial source of all the subsequent problems of western philosophy

and human thinking? As was stated in the second chapter of this study, there lies a

fundamental distinction between being (das Sein) and beings (das Seiende). Rivas views

this distinction this way , “Being is “the originary foundational source of disclosed and

discoverable knowledge” while beings are, “the ordinary conception of what makes a

thing as it is, or that of which it is understood as something with a positive value” 65”.

Throughout the history of modern Humanity, Human beings, together with all

the sciences, have become too obsessed with beings that they fail to see the fundamental

difference between Being and being. The failure to see the difference between Being and

beings leads them to treat all beings as if they are mere resource just waiting for the

taking, which lead to the flourishing of techno-capitalistic systems, which in turn

destroys the ecological balance of nature due to the unreasonable demand it puts into it

65
Rivas, Heidegger and the Paradox of Human Decision, 173.

71
that opens up the possible extinction of different species of plants and animals, with

Human Beings as no exception. Viewed from this perspective it seems that Heidegger is

correct when he claimed that the failure to acknowledge the Ontological Difference

between Being and beings is the source for all subsequent problems of not just

Philosophy but the whole façade of disciplines that Humanity devised. From this

realization the author thought that, if this is the source of the problem then why don’t

we begin to address the multitude of problems of the current techno-capitalistic systems

by first returning to this source? And this is where the need for a Flat Ontology or an

Object Oriented Ontology emerges.

Heidegger defines ontology as, “the study of being as such”, derived from the

two Greek words onto which means “to be” and logia or “to study”. But for the majority

of the history of Philosophy, ontology failed to view and study beings as such. Instead

of a presuppositionless and unprejudiced view of beings, ontology became; due to its

being oblivious of the Ontological Difference—a study of being from the stand point of

the Human subject. That is why perhaps Edmund Husserl was right when he

proclaimed with the famous slogan of Phenomenology that we should go “back to the

things themselves”. This is why Heidegger calls for the “destruktion” or the destructive

retrieval of the history of Philosophy in order to be able to retrieve it from these

traditional blunders. This destructive retrieval of the history of Philosophy will

eventually lead to the founding of a new ontological position, a position that is

72
unbiased, free of prejudices and presuppositions, a flat ontology that doesn’t put man in

the centre of the ontological picture, an ontology that is object-oriented. For only after

such can the current problems of techno-capitalist societies and systems be properly

addressed in their core. And only then can the return to a genuine mode of

technological revealing be possible.

Conclusion

The problem of technology is not the same with the problems with the workings

of machines and technological systems. It cannot be solved by improving a particular

technology to rid itself of the problems of it precursor. The problem of technology is

something more than what the current schema of techno-capitalistic economies and

systems makes them out to be. It is not a problem of nut and bolts, gears and shaft that

the technician or any other technically masterful individual or group of individuals may

solve by tweaking something here and there. The problem of technology is deeply

rooted in the problem of the very rarely traversed field of human thinking and its

relation with beings.

The mode of technological revealing present and operating within a particular

society, be it that of a genuine bringing-forth or that of an aggressive challenging-forth,

directly stems from the prevalent mode of existence that thrives in its citizens. So the

solution to the present technological problems of our time lies not in the belief that

73
through further and constant technological advancements we can somehow solve all

the problems of current technologies, but in the fact that technology adheres to its

definition of being both anthropological and equipmental in character. It is deeply

grounded in Humans, in the very core of their existence, their very essence and way of

thinking. Technology is like a mirror that shows how man sees the world around him

and at the same time a tool that enables him to change what he sees according to what

he thinks he needs.

The ruling class, having possession and most access of technology, the

educational institutions, and the mass media was able to dictate the trajectory of

Human civilization. By controlling the type of thinking that operates within a particular

society the ruling elite was able dictate the type of technological revealing that will

thrive within that society. They turn masses into technological professionals, such as

technicians, engineers, and other masterful people to further the development of the

technology that gives them profit, the vicious turning of the technological machine

which harms the ecological balance of Nature. They, with the help of the mass media,

turn the majority of the population into people that can only think within a strictly

technological and calculated paradigm where the occurrence of self emancipation is

tantamount to nada. And it is here where the greatest danger with modern technology

lies, when it affects Dasein in his core, in his very way of thinking. The danger of

74
modern technology is that it perverts human thinking and holds it hostage into a purely

technological rationality.

Thus, to solve the current problems of technology together with all its

peripheries (i.e. ecological threat, possible nuclear fallout, depletion of natural

resources, etc...) it needs to retrace its origin back to where it is but a mere periphery, in

the problem of human thinking. On how we, as human beings, look at things. In the

long forgotten Ontological Difference between Being and beings.

Thus any attempt to reverse, arrest, or derail the turning of the technological

trend operating today can only be done through a similar turn in the ontological

schema. This turning also requires the conscious effort of everyone, in direct relation to

the individual, to live a life that is as close as possible to the authentic. Authenticity

doesn’t only mean the full realization of Dasein’s potentialities, it also means an

authentic relationship of Human Da-sein with non-human Daseins or what we more

commonly refer to as things.

Nowadays, we cannot see the true danger in technology because we are the very

product of a system wherein that danger thrives and it has already affected us in our

beings. The saving power that lies dormant within the mysterious essence of technology

becomes ever more concealed under such circumstances. The saving power of

technology cannot be truly harnessed as long as Human thinking continues to be held

75
hostage by technological rationality and is dominated by a thinking that is both

manipulative and calculative—not until it transcends these entrapments will the being

and thinking of the being that thinks be ever be free again.

76
Things are easier to control while things are quiet.
Things are easier to plan far in advance.
Things break easier while they are still brittle.
Things are more concealed while they are still small.

Prevent trouble before they arise.

Take action before things get out of hand.
The tallest tree
begins as a tiny sprout.
The tallest building
starts with one shovel of dirt.
A journey of a thousand miles
starts with a single foot step.

Rushing into action, you fail.

Trying to grasp things, you lose them

Forcing a project to completion,

You ruin what was almost ripe.

Therefore the Master acts by lettings things be

She let them take their course.
She doesn't hold on to things
Thus never loses them.
By pursing your goals too relentlessly,
you let them slip away.
If you are as concerned about the outcome
as you are about the beginning,
then it is hard to lose your way.

The master seeks no possessions.

She learns by unlearning,
thus she is able to understand all things.
thus she can care for all things”

– Tao Te ching, Chapter 64

77
 Bibliography
Primary Sources:

Adorno, Theodor. The Culture Industry(Ed. J.M. Bernstein). Routledge, 2001.

Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Trans. by Ben Brewster), in
Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, 1971.

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press,

1958.

Deleuze, Gilles. Nietzsche and Philosophy (Trans. by Janis Tomlinson). Columbia

University Press, 1983.

Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus (Trans. by Brian Massumi).
University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time (Trans. by Joan Staubaugh). State University of New
York Press (SUNY Press), 1927.

________. Being and Time (Trans. by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson). Harper
Perennial, 2008.

________. An Introduction to Metaphysics (Trans. by Ralph Mahein) Yale University

Press, 1996.

________. Being and Existence (Trans. by Dr. Werner Brock). Vision Press, 1956.

________. What is Metaphysics?, in Basic Writings (Ed. David Farrell Krell). Harper &
Rows Publishers, 1977.

________. On the Essence of Truth, in Basic Writings (Ed. David Farrell Krell). Harper &
Rows Publishers, 1977.

________. The Origin of the Work of Art, in Basic Writings (Ed. David Farrell Krell).
Harper & Rows Publishers, 1977.

78
________.The Question Concerning Technology, in The Question Concerning Technology
and Other Essays, (Trans. William Lovitt). State Garland Publishing, INC., 1977.

________.The Turning, in The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays,

(Trans. by William Lovitt). State Garland Publishing, INC., 1977.

________. Building Dwelling Thinking, in Poetry, Language, Thought (Trans. by Albert

Hofstadter). Harper & Row, INC., 2001.

________. The Thing, in Poetry, Language, Thought (Trans. by Albert Hofstadter).

Harper & Row, INC., 2001.

Lao Tzu , Tao Te Ching (Trans. Stephen Mitchell). Harper Perennial, 2006.

Marcuse, Herbert. One Dimensional Man. Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964.

Okakura, Kakuzo. The Book of Tea. Dreamsmyth, 2001.

Plato, The Republic, in The Republic and Other Works (Trans. by B. Jowett). Double Day,
1989.

Stiegler, Bernard. Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus (Trans. by Richard
Beardsworth and George Collins). Stanford University Press, 1998.

Virilio, Paul. Virilio Live: Selected Interviews. Sage, 2001.

Secondary Sources:

Adams, Jason Michael. The Speeds of Ambiguity: An Interview with Paul Virilio. Duke
University Press, 2012

Brock, Werner. An account of Being and Time, in Reality, Man and Existence (Ed. by H.J.
Blackham). Bantam Books, 1965.

Dreyfus, Hubert. Heidegger on Gaining a Free Relationship with Technology, in Heidegger

Re-examined vol. 3 (Ed. by Hubert Dreyfus and Mark Wrathall). Routlegde, 2002.

79
Germain, Gilber. The Human Condition in the Age of Technology, in Globalization,
Technology, and Philosophy (Ed. by David Tabachnick and Toivo Koivukoski). State
University of New York Press (SUNY Press), 2004

Glazebrook, Trish. Global Technology and the Promise of Control, in Globalization,

Technology, and Philosophy (Ed. by David Tabachnick and Toivo Koivukoski). State
University of New York Press (SUNY Press), 2004

Lebedeva, Kristina. The Role of Techne in the Authenticity-Inauthenticity Distinction, in

Kritike Vol.1, 2007

Melzer, Arthur. The Problem with the Problem of Technology, in Globalization, Technology,
and Philosophy (Ed. by David Tabachnick and Toivo Koivukoski). State University of
New York Press (SUNY Press), 2004

Rivas, Virgilio. Heidegger and the Paradox of Human Decision, in Philosophy: A History of
Man. Unlad Publishing Company, 2010

________. What is Object Oriented Ecology?, available at http://veraqivas.wordpress.com/

(Accessed on October 2012)

________. Singularity and Post-Humanity: Towards a Non-Political Economy, available at

http://veraqivas.wordpress.com/ (Accessed on October 2012)

________. Non-Philosophy and the Technicity of Reduction, available at

http://veraqivas.wordpress.com/ (Accessed on October 2012)

Sans, Jérôme. The Game of Love and Chance: A Discussion with Paul Virilio, available at
http://www.watsoninstitute.org/infopeace/vy2k/sans.cfm (Accessed on February 20,
2013)

Sario, Alvin. Heidegger and Marx on Techology. Lecture, World Philosophy Day, Institute
of Social History-Research Institute for Politics and Econimics, Polytechnic University
of the Philippines, Manila, November 2012

Smith, Gregory Bruce. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Transition to Post Modernity. The
University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Soccio, Douglas. The Archetypes of Wisdom. Wadsworth, 2001.

80
Staumbaugh, Joan. Thoughts on Heidegger. University Press of America, 1991

Tiles, Mary. Technology and Environment, in A Companion to the Philosophy of

Technology (Ed. by J.K. B. Olsen). Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009.

Film Sources:

The Ister. DVD. Directed by David Barison and Daniel Ross, (Black Box Sound and
Image, Fitzroy, 3065 Australia), 2004

81