Name: Lau Tin Fung

SID: 1155195245
Course: PHIL 4443 (Technology)
Assignment: Exercise 1

Introduction
As technology is all around us, we are living in a world that is dominated by
technology, and this is also the case during Heidegger’s time. Moreover, technology
is also responsible (at least partly) for the catastrophe during the two World Wars.
Therefore, the significance of technology had brought Heidegger’s interest on it, and
in 1954, he published the book “The Questioning Concerning Technology”, which
aims to look for the essence of modern technology, and how it determines the way we
interact with the world, including the way we treat “human beings”. To put it more
further, the essence of modern technology can be seen as the spirit of our time, and
this is why Heidegger chooses “technology” as the topic to investigate.

In this essay. I will first reconstruct Heidegger’s argument presented in the excerpt,
which talks about the mode of revealing of modern technology, which is
“challenging-forth”. Afterwards, I will introduce the notion of “bringing-forth”, which
is also shown in the excerpt and is the contrary of “challenging-forth”. After that, I
will move on to the other parts of the book, and introduce the notion “Enframing”,
since it is the essence of modern technology. During my elaboration, I will at the
same time explain some of the terminologies in this text, and summarize the main
points of it. Lastly, I will try to give some comments and my thoughts on this text.

Argument Reconstructed
First of all, Heidegger had a clear statement that “What is modern technology? It too
is a revealing.”, which indicates modern technology as a revealing. However, he
further stated that “the revealing that holds sway......does not unfold into a bringing-
forth in the sense of poiesis.” Rather, “the revealing that rules in modern technology
is a challenging”. This means that modern technology is a revealing in the sense of
“challenging-forth” instead of “bringing-forth” (poiesis). And Heidegger had further
provided the reason “which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply
energy that can be extracted and stored as such”, which means modern technology is
a “challenging-forth” because modern technology demands the nature to supply us
extractable and storable energies, which is itself an unreasonable demand. Therefore,
the argument can be reconstructed as follow:

1. Modern technology is a revealing

2. Revealing can either be “bringing-forth” (poiesis) or “challenging-forth”
3. “Challenging-forth” is a revealing that orders the world
4. Modern technology orders the world
Therefore, Modern Technology is a revealing in the sense of “challenging-forth”

Above is the reconstructed argument presented by Heidegger, and I am now going to

elaborate more on the argument, and explain some of the key terms of it.

Key terms

Revealing
First of all, Heidegger refers modern technology as a revealing, and revealing is one
of the most important concepts in this book.

Revealing means to reveal the meaning of “something”, and by doing so, it makes that
“something” become a “thing”. For example, before an “apple” is being revealed as
an “apple”, it is simply a “something” that is “red and round”. But after the revealing
of its meaning as an “apple”, it is revealed and becomes a “thing” rather than simply
being “something”. Therefore in other words, revealing means to recognize the
meaning of “something”, and to let it become a “thing”. Besides, the status for
“something” before being revealed is “concealment”, while the status after that is
“unconcealment”. Therefore, revealing can also be rephrased as revealing something
from concealment to unconcealment, by revealing its meaning.

However, the result of our revealing can differ, for example someone may reveal the
“apple” as “a fruit I love to eat”, while someone may reveal it as “a product to sell”.
This means that such revealing can be in different forms, and Heidegger further
suggests that some revealing are genuine, while some are ungenuine.
“Bringing-forth” (poiesis) as the genuine form of revealing
First of all, “Bringing-forth” in general means to bring something from not-presencing
to presencing,1 therefore it is also a revealing, because it brings “something” into a
“presencing thing”. For example, a craftsman creates a silver vessel is a revealing,
because he has brought the silver vessel from not-presencing to presencing as a silver
vessel (as a thing). However, “bringing-forth” has a more in-depth meaning of
revealing, because it means to reveal something simply as they are, and therefore
“bringing-forth” is the genuine form of revealing. And Heidegger had illustrated this
idea by re-interpreting the “four causes” theory of Aristotle.

As indicated by Aristotle, all presencing things have “four causes”, which are
“material cause”, “formal cause”, “final cause” and “efficient cause”. Heidegger
thinks that the “efficient cause” had been recognized by the majority as the most
standard and important cause for centuries, because it is the only cause that actively
brings something out. As the “material cause”, “formal cause” and “final cause” are
all static, they lack the motility to bring things out. However, the “efficient cause” is
the only cause that is dynamic and therefore capable of bringing things out. For
example, the “silver”, the “shape” and the “purpose” of the silver vessel are all static
and cannot move by themselves, therefore the presence of the silver vessel must be
brought by an agent who is dynamic, and that is the craftsman. Therefore, the
“efficient cause” is being thought as playing the most essential role in the presencing
of things.

However, Heidegger re-interpret the “four causes” theory, and he describes the four
causes as co-responsible for the presencing of things, which he tries to equalize the
importance of all the four causes. In his interpretation, the craftsman (efficient cause)
brings the things out simply by considering carefully and gathering the other three
causes together. This means that the craftsman simply creates the silver vessel by
“helping” the vessel to come to its presencing, through combining the existing three
causes, and without imposing any other elements on it. In other words, he simply
helps the vessel to appear as it is, and therefore it is a genuine form of revealing.

1
“Every occasion for whatever passes over and goes forward into presencing from that which is not presencing is
poiesis, is bringing-forth.” QCT, p.10.
Under this interpretation, the three causes are originally concealed, because they were
separated and were not presence yet. However, they become unconcealed when they
were combined and presence as a “silver vessel”, which means they were presence as
a thing. And more importantly, the craftsman brings the vessel to unconcealment,
simply by combining the three “Potentiality” (Three causes) into an “Actuality” and
“helps” them to appear as they are. In other words, he simply reveals the meaning of
the three causes as they are, and makes it become presencing. Therefore, “bringing-
forth” is a genuine form of revealing that brings the concealed into its unconcealment,
simply by helping them to appear as they are, and without imposing any other
elements on it.

“Challenging-forth” as the ungenuine form of revealing

However, there is an ungenuine form of revealing, which does not reveal things
simply as they are, but reveal them as our order, and this is “challenging-forth”, an
opposite concept with “bringing-forth”.

First of all, “challenging-forth” is also a revealing, because it is also a way to reveal

the meaning of “something”. However, it does not reveal the meaning of “something”
simply as they are, but reveals the meaning of “something” as our order, which
means it had imposed other elements on that “something”.

The word “challenging” means “summon to action, to demand positively, to

provoke”, therefore “challenging-forth” means bringing something out of
concealment by imposing our order on it, which is usually accompany with our
motives on manipulating that thing. For example, when we reveal the “Rhine river” as
“a tourist spot”, this indicates that we do not reveal the meaning of “Rhine river”
simply as “Rhine river”, but revealing its meaning as “a place that can gain profit for
us”. This shows that we had imposed our order of “profitable” to the Rhine river, and
try to manipulate it as something “capable of gaining profit for us”. And if the Rhine
River fails to gain profit for us, then we will regard the Rhine River as failing its
function. Therefore, the Rhine River no longer appears simply as its own, but appears
as our order.
Heidegger had further introduced the term “standing-reserve” to indicate things that
are ordered by us. Therefore, things become “standing-reserve” when they were
“challenged-forth” by us. Besides, Heidegger proposed that these “standing-reserve”
are no longer object anymore, because we do not reveal them as their original
meaning, but as something ordered by us, which means we had distorted their
meanings.2 Conversely, things revealed by “bringing-forth” is an object, because we
reveal them simply as they originally are.

Modern technology as “Challenging-forth”

Above has explained the concept of “revealing”, “bringing-forth” and “challenging-
forth”, and I am now going to return to the above reconstructed argument.

As stated above, Heidegger had explicitly indicated that modern technology itself is a
revealing (Premise 1), and as we defined, revealing means to reveal the meaning of
“something”. Therefore, we could come to conclude that modern technology itself is a
way of revealing the meaning of “something”. But what does that means?

Heidegger does not understand modern technology as those technological devices, but
as a way of thinking. In other words, modern technology refers to the technological
way of thinking. And the characteristic of this technological way of thinking is, it
reveals everything as “standing-reserve”. That is, it recognizes everything in the
world as our order, as capable of being manipulated by us, including nature itself, and
this is the meaning for Premise 4 (Modern technology orders the nature).

Heidegger showed this idea by using the windmill as an example in the excerpt. He
suggested that our usage on the windmill had changed when comparing to the past. In
the past, we would not have any order on the windmill, and the windmill would
simply stood there and got blew by the wind. However, we would now order or
require the windmill to store energies for us. Besides, we would even require the
windmill to release the energy for us whenever we require it, which means the
windmill should always on call and ready at hand for us. In other words, the windmill
2
“Whatever stands by in the sense of standing-reserve no longer stands over against us as object.” QCT, p.17.
is ordered to stand by and wait for our command, and if it does not perform these
functions, then it is a poor windmill. Therefore, we no longer recognize the windmill
simply as a windmill, but recognize it as a “energy storing platform” that is capable of
manipulate and on call for us. Heidegger had further provided other examples in the
next paragraph, for example even the earth now is recognized by us as a coal-mining
district, which further shows that nature itself has become the “standing-reserve” and
should be on call for us.

Furthermore, since the technological way of thinking reveals everything as “standing-

reserve”, therefore even man itself has become the “standing-reserve”, which means
even man itself has become on call and ready at hand for us. For example in a factory,
we will reveal the meaning of a worker by “the effort he can pay”. And if the effort he
can pay in his working is higher, then he is a better man, and if it is fewer, then he is
worse. Heidegger thinks that the word “human resources” has best captured such
situation, because it shows that man itself has become a resource that can be ordered
to stand by for us.3

Therefore, modern technology is a revealing in the sense of “challenging-forth”,

because modern technology as a way of thinking reveals everything as “standing-
reserve”, everything as standing by to wait for further ordering.

Enframing
But why do we reveal everything as “standing-reserve”? The answer from Heidegger
is, we did not choose to do so, instead, we were ordered by this technological way of
thinking to reveal everything as “standing-reserve”. This means that we were also a
“standing-reserve”, because we were ordered by the technological way of thinking to
reveal everything as ordering, as “standing-reserve”, and this whole ordering is the
essence of modern technology, which Heidegger indicated it as “Enframing”.4 In
short, we do not choose to reveal everything as “standing-reserve”, but we were
determined by “Enframing” to do so. And this is also the reason why Heidegger

3
“The current talk about human resources, about the supply of patients for a clinic, gives evidence of this.” QCT,
p.18.
4
“Enframing means the gathering together of that setting-upon which sets upon man, i,e, challenges him forth,
to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve.” QCT, p.20.
thinks that technology is not neutral, because it is modern technology that determines
our way of thinking, but not the vice versa.5

As people living in this epoch, we were ordered by “Enframing” to reveal everything

as “standing-reserve”. In other words, “Enframing” as the essence of modern
technology has determines the way our generation reveal the world, therefore such
“Enframing” is also the essence of our epoch, the essence of this technological epoch,
while the origin of “Enframing” itself is still an unknown.6

Summary
Modern technology as a way of thinking is a revealing, because it is a way to reveal
the meaning of things. However, this technological way of thinking is a “challenging-
forth” instead of “bringing-forth”, because it does not reveal things as they originally
are, but reveal them as our order, including nature and man itself.

Moreover, we did not choose to reveal things as “standing-reserve”, but we were

ordered by the technological way of thinking to reveal everything as ordering. In other
words, we were determined by the ordering of modern technology as well, which
Heidegger further called this ordering as “Enframing”.

Heidegger indicated “Enframing” as the essence of modern technology. And since it

has determined the way our generation reveals the world, therefore modern
technology is also the essence of our epoch, and is not something neutral.

My comments
Above is my elaboration of this text, and I am now going to give some thoughts and
comments on it.

First of all, I think Heidegger’s view on modern technology could be developed based
on Husserl’s criticism on Naturalism. In the “Vienna Lecture” published in 1935.

5
“But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral” QCT, p.4.
6
“Modern physics is the herald of Enframing, a herald whose origin is still unknown.” QCT, p.22.
Husserl had criticized the dominance of “Natural Science” as the “European crisis”.
The dominance of natural science refers to Naturalism, which thinks that everything
in the world are fundamentally physical. Husserl thinks such domination is a crisis,
because it ignores our “spirituality”, which is supposed to be the grounding of the
world.

Aside viewing all things as physical, I think Naturalism could further develop into the
revealing of “challenging-forth”.7 This is because, as all things are simply physical,
they are simply things that are presented as “over-there” in the space and time, and
therefore letting us have a sense of “grasping” those things and “controlling” it. Such
“grasping” and “controlling” is similar with Heidegger’s “challenging-forth”, because
it also means our will of “ordering” things to stand-by and wait for our further
ordering, which is also a kind of “controlling”. Therefore, I think Husserl’s criticism
on Naturalism may have influenced Heidegger’s thought on the “challenging-forth” in
modern technology.

However, I think Heidegger seems to differ from Husserl’s idea, in the way that
Heidegger advocates “bringing-forth”, which is a way that simply “helps” the things
to appear itself or to reveal the meaning of things simply as they are. However, this
may presuppose the independence of the object, which means it assumes the object
has its “original appearance or meaning” that is independent from us. However, I
think Husserl may oppose this idea, because he thinks that everything is constituted
by us, which means we are the one who constituted and grounded the meaning of a
“thing”. Therefore, there are no such thing as “original appearance or meaning”
independent from us.

Lastly, I am wondering whether artifacts could appear simply as they are, because
they are always created with a purpose, which means they are always accompany with
an “order” at the very beginning. For instance, when I create a chair, it must include
the purpose of creating it, for example “sitting on it”. Therefore, a chair must include
the order of “sit-able” on it. Therefore, it seems reasonable to reveal the chair as “sit-
able”. However, I guess Heidegger might even think such revealing is a “challenging-

7
“The result of the consistent development of the exact sciences in the modern period was a true revolution in
the technical control of nature.” Vienna Lecture, p.271.
forth”, because it does not reveal the chair simply as a chair, but reveals it as an
ordering of “sit-able”. Therefore my question could be rephrased as, how can I
purposefully create an artifact but at the same time does not reveal it as an ordering?

Conclusion
In the “Questioning Concerning Technology”, Heidegger articulates “Enframing” as
the essence of modern technology, and further suggests that “Enframing” had sets
upon man to reveal everything as “standing-reserve”, as on call and ready at hand for
us. “Enframing” is not only the essence of modern technology, but also the essence of
our epoch, since it determines our way of revealing the world. I think Heidegger’s
thought on modern technology is similar with and can be developed based on
Husserl’s criticism on Naturalism. However, Heidegger regards “bringing-forth” as
the genuine way of revealing, because it reveals things simply as they are. But I think
this contradicts with Husserl’s thought, because Husserl does not think there are such
thing as “original appearance or meaning of a thing” independent from us. Lastly, I
am doubtful for whether artifacts can be revealed without our order, because they are
always created by us with a purpose from the start.