So did anyone understand Heidegger's critiques of technology? What do they bring new to the table? It sounds kind of lame let's be honest.
>Heidegger draws attention to technology’s place in bringing about our decline by constricting our experience of things as they are. He argues that we now view nature, and increasingly human beings too, only technologically — that is, we see nature and people only as raw material for technical operations. Heidegger seeks to illuminate this phenomenon and to find a way of thinking by which we might be saved from its controlling power, to which, he believes, modern civilization both in the communist East and the democratic West has been shackled. We might escape this bondage, Heidegger argues, not by rejecting technology, but by perceiving its danger.
What do you mean ”lame”? Technological thinking permeates modern philosophical history and most of ”modernity” today
Is it lame revealing how we’re stuck in a calculating-using-producing-presence way of being and that most other horizons of being have been eclipsed by technology?
Grayson Hill
It seems pretty obvious that technology changes human perception of reality for the worse. Acknowleding that in our pursuit of technological advancement seems like the best way forward. Take the internet. In the 'golden age', a kind of libertarian idealism was imagined which saw the unhindered expansion of the technology as an imancipatory tool. This kind of thinking (unintentionally) has led to a corporate-state surveillance industrial complex that has reduced human interaction to quantified, economic units. A similar sort of process is happening with crypto and the blockchain. What began as a relatively sincere project to wrestle back control from centralising forces like banks has been reduced to a profit-seeking race to the bottom where mass-produced images of monkeys with guns are assigned (much) more value than projects like Monero which genuinely try to address serious economic and monetary issues. Acknowledging these kinds of factors and processes from the beginning may have allowed the building in or acting out ways in which to mitigate those downsides. As such, the libertarian ideals of a free and open internet and cryptocurrency that poses a serious challenge to banking hegemony and fiat currency might have actually persisted. I guess capitalist realism and deterritorialisation come into play as well with technology though.
Juan Williams
I hope you get better user.
Daniel Edwards
Oh, sorry. Forgot where I was. What I meant was kek what a fucking midwit take. kys faggot.
Connor Smith
The question concerning technology is not technology.
Jason Watson
>Take the internet. In the 'golden age', a kind of libertarian idealism was imagined which saw the unhindered expansion of the technology as an imancipatory tool. This kind of thinking (unintentionally) has led to a corporate-state surveillance industrial complex that has reduced human interaction to quantified, economic units. A similar sort of process is happening with crypto and the blockchain. What began as a relatively sincere project to wrestle back control from centralising forces like banks has been reduced to a profit-seeking race to the bottom where mass-produced images of monkeys with guns are assigned (much) more value than projects like Monero which genuinely try to address serious economic and monetary issues. Sounds like literally everything else. Any institution, money, banks, governments, anything at all followed the same process. Nothing to do with technology, this is dumb.
Leo Thompson
>Heidegger seeks to illuminate this phenomenon Why? what's wrong with it?
Anthony Richardson
>Sounds like literally everything else. No.
Luke Sullivan
Ok dimwit go seethe about computers somewhere else lmao
Jackson Jackson
>Any institution, money, banks, governments, anything at all followed the same process. Of course. I just used the internet as a precient example that most people older than 25 or so saw happen with their own eyes. The question is when did that process occur for those institutions? I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that modernity is the underlying social condition that makes that process possible and therefore occur in all institutions, and that subsequently modernity occured with significant technological advancement made possible by the advances of capital. In other words, banks, money, government, and pretty much all modern institutions are directly tied to technology and its quantity-directed modes of value. Also that wasn't me but I'm not seething about computers. Technology can be a force for serious good. It just isn't at the moment and probably won't be until we seriously consider why that is and take action to mitigate that process. Butlerian Jihad when?
>In other words, banks, money, government, and pretty much all modern institutions are directly tied to technology and its quantity-directed modes of value. What? These institutions hae nothing to do with technology. Banks did this stuff since the renaissance, and the others even earlier.
Has anyone read Heidegger's thoughts? Can you explain how he applies the concept of dasein to find something insightful about how technology affects us? Yes, it changes our perspectives, any 12 year old can say this. More details though?
Noah Brown
>What do they bring new to the table? People create technology both as a mean and as a goal, so for example you are cold, to warm up you need wood, to get wood you need an axe The axe is both a mean and a goal Now thing is that with the development of technology, with the axe getting replaced by a saw, then by a industrial sawmill complex etc., we entered an endless efficiency race which resulted that we see nature only as a resource that waits to be used the river Rhine is just the actuator of a hydro power plant, the forest is just wood that isn't cut yet, the mountain is coal that hasn't been dig up yet. Heidegger says that in the future the same thing will happen to people, and he's kinda right if you look at the internet, individual people have been reduced to likes, shares, ad views etc. Thing is also that we see technology as a mean for us, while with its development humanity has been subordinated to technology. Nowadays things arent getting produced with the sake that there is a need for them, like with firewood since we are going to freeze to death, but simply because its possible to produce it, stack it somewhere in a warehouse and eventually sell them to CONSOOMERS (for example, there is no natural need for Coca Cola, and when you look at Heideggers view on poiesis, the ceremonial silver gobled example if you remember and if you actually read the book, you'd get it.) I guess that you expected a Unabomber Industry bad kind of book, it tl:dr its about how humanity sees nature and technology and how technology rules over man now and not the other way around
Liam Foster
Good, since he missed the point of the book and boils it down to nostalgia good nature good technology bad
Jayden Lewis
Heidegger is literally a holderlin fag coping about muh windmills you don't get to say its much beyond that.
Wyatt Turner
Please go actually read the book for once instead of reading the wiki, Jonas Čeika
Brody Baker
I did read the book. Question Concerning Technology is a cope parody of Husserl's Masterpiece, The Crisis of European Science.
>Banks did this stuff since the renaissance The Renaissance, you mean right around the invention of the printing press, gunpowder, etc.?
Aiden Jackson
Catapults and aquaducts were invented even earlier, sounds like technology means anything you don't like
Oliver Wood
Thank you for confirming that you indeed didn't *read* the book, nor heidegger in general
Juan Peterson
Technology is everything man created, from computers to the programmer socks you are wearing
Wyatt Rodriguez
Catapults and aqueducts were not capable of being mass produced or used for mass production
Andrew Torres
who is the fag always crying about Holderlin?
Jason Fisher
'Technology' did not begin with the industrial revolution, nor did capital.
Jace Hall
So houses and tools are technology got it. We really needed an analysis why houses are bad.
Christian Thompson
Technology isnt bad, Heidegger doesnt claim that, he just says that technology can lead to evil
also >We really needed an analysis why houses are bad Housing market
Ryder Wilson
If someone had read the book, they could've explained Heidegger's novel insight by now.
Brandon Green
Which is what?
Grayson White
I'm currently reading The Technological Society by Ellul, and while it's possible I'm just not being nuanced enough, I see great similarity between Ellul and what you guys are describing from Heidegger. Interestingly, both books were published in the same year, so both thinkers could have been influenced by the same events and current thought.
Have either of you read both and can comment on any distinguishing features or contrasts?
Sounds very basic and uninteresting. It's also wrong: we use technology. Every piece of technology exists because someone wants it and someone makes a profit from it. > sell them to CONSOOMERS (for example, there is no natural need for Coca Cola People like it. What "natural need"? People have a "natural need" for pleasure, and they like the taste of Coca Cola.
Connor Williams
>so both thinkers could have been influenced by the same events and current thought. Same for Jungers Glass Bees, the period between WW1 and WW2 was a shock for a lot of people, and post-ww2 was even greater. A lot of new technologies were developed and people figured out that out civilization is heading towards progress for the sake of progress and towards the consumer economy I still have to read Ellul, but as far I know he was influenced by Kierkegaard (same for Heidegger) and if that's true, Kierkegaards "The Present Age" could be the book linking them together Its a short book and some of its ideas still holds up for our age
Julian Johnson
>we use technology. Every piece of technology exists because someone wants it and someone makes a profit from it.
>people figured out that out civilization is heading towards progress for the sake of progress Not what's happening. There's never been a greater period for reducing global poverty. The progress we've made helped billions of people.
Colton Long
>People like it. What "natural need"? People have a "natural need" for pleasure, and they like the taste of Coca Cola.
Sorry, your memes don't count as arguments. Working conditions at Amazon are still much better than working conditions in the past.
Samuel Bailey
Yes, luxurious exclusive brand created a thing for an infinitely small demographic. Not an argument.
Grayson Powell
Aha so you are saying that in the past we didn't use technology, but now that the working conditions are better we are using it? It's not like technological innovation is linked to investors and making a profit, creating needs where they didn't exist and first creating products before finding a problem?
How do you manage to read Heidegger and NOT become a Nazi?
and I dont mean Hitler, Göring or whoever, but the ideal itself.
Its baffling Heidegger managed to remain relevant in a world of people who despise the genuine ideal he saw as essentially necessary. A bunch of retarded marxist and liberals who never could follow his thoughts to the same end because it would horrify their ideological notions.
>the river Rhine is just the actuator of a hydro power plant, the forest is just wood that isn't cut yet, the mountain is coal that hasn't been dig up yet. Heidegger says that in the future the same thing will happen to people Heidegger inhabits the dustbin because he said that this is going to happen. Marx said that it already happened, somewhere around the Bronze Age.
Sebastian Jones
Marx was retarded.
Brody Anderson
>Nothing to do with technology Completely filtered. You're missing the point of how Heidegger defines technology. >Any institution, money, banks, governments, anything at all followed the same process. Correct. Now look into how Heidegger developed the idea of 'gestalt' in the essay. Technology doesn't just mean "physical inventions."
David Barnes
So can you explain what technology means to Heidegger and what novel insights he produced in OP's book?
Jonathan Evans
I tried summarizing it for you but I can't understand it for you
Jayden Taylor
this isn’t about “technology” as you might understand it. It’s about a more fundamental shift in our concept of being. In the modern age, we tend to conceive of being as a “standing reserve” of resources to be manipulated and controlled, leading to certain behaviors and modes of existence that Heidegger found troubling. If you want more specific critiques and understanding of technology, referring to computers, robots, etc. look into Don Ihde, Peter-Paul Verbeek, and other phenomenologists of technology.
Dominic Cox
All of Heidegger is lame, you'll either find his conclusions final or irrelevant and either fuck off into the woods forever or move on with your life.
Colton Nguyen
>Nothing to do with technology, this is dumb. >This absolute nigger of spirit does not even retrieve the ancient greek meaning of greek words
>spoonfeed me No. Start by reading the entire Platonic and Aristolian corpus, focusing on the concept τέχνη you absolute gigapleb.
Josiah Bennett
Fuck off already retard, you neer read a book in your life lmao
Juan Martinez
Two bits of terminology are very important for making sense of his view: >enframing >standing reserve I’d read more about them and then go back and re-read the essay. It’s a really enduring and phenomenal work.
Nathan Reyes
Absolutely based and doubly based recommendations. I’ve read a fair bit of Verbeek.
Jacob Richardson
>Is it lame revealing how we’re stuck in a calculating-using-producing-presence way of being and that most other horizons of being have been eclipsed by technology? Some people will never grasp this no matter how clear a case is made for them
Jonathan Hughes
>So can you explain what technology means to Heidegger The process of understanding something as already embedded within the unconscious hegemonic definition of that something is "enframing." Think about fighting climate change using cap and trade or fighting racism using race as a practical category until you realize where the foundation of justification becomes apparent and loops. Technology is pseudo-ontological as a self-justified process; it enframes.
Parker Anderson
>A difference to note here is that Jünger's focus is on technology as being and law. The state is in many ways supplanted by technology in the modern period, and what we see in governmental types is often a form of technical organisation rather than state power. The state is essentially determined by the technological relation, a neutralising force which demands a strong politics or simple being. The state cannot be in opposition to technical organisation, nor have the power to control it, as it is part of the same form, it is a way of being specific to our era. This is precisely what allows it to maintain its liberated character, it is a totality, as in the trees of a forest which are given greater character where a great tree or mountain towers above them.
>This is essential to the functioning of the society of nations. It effectively has more power than any traditional state, but also functions in a manner that suggests liberation and revolution, and as if all that happens is of nature. It is in this that we sense a great oppression while not being able to communicate what causes our discontent. Revolutionary organisations often lead to a worsening of destructive tendencies, and ossification, as they act blindly against the natural character of technical society without recognising that they are themselves part of it. This adds another stratum to technical order, and a deeper sense of impoverishment once the technical domination is felt. This is what we saw with the Soviet Union, the opposition to technology as material only creates a greater monstrosity. Technology is the most powerful source of profanation, yet its effects are of the sacred. Which is why critiques of technology always fail, they are luddism at the level of theoretical knowledge, and thus deepen the technological relation because of their misunderstanding.
