The Destiny of Technology.docx

The Destiny of Technology.docx

《The Destiny of Technology.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《The Destiny of Technology.docx（15页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

TheDestinyofTechnology

TheDestinyofTechnology:

ModernScienceandHumanFreedomintheLaterHeidegger

RexGilliland,Birmingham-SouthernCollege

WhenwereadHeidegger’slecturesInsightintoThatWhichIs（1949）andTheThing（1950）onceagain,theunderlyingthemeisstillstriking:

AccordingtoHeidegger,theinventionoftheairplaneandtheradiomaybringthedistantcornersoftheworldwithinreachinfarlesstimethanwasformerlypossible,butthisdoesnotmeanthatwehavebroughtthingsintonearness.Moderntechnologymayremovedistances（Entfernungen,Abstände）,butitdoesnotgrasptheessenceofthenearness（Nähe）andremoteness（Ferne）ofthingsbecausethelatterneverarisesasaquestionforit（seeGA79:

3-4;GA7:

167-168/Th165-166）.[1]Byelucidatingthedifferencebetweenthesetwowaysofrelatingtothething,Heideggerraisesnotonlytheissueoftheessenceofthething,butalsotheissueoftheessenceoftechnology.[2]However,somemaywonderwhetherHeidegger’sdiscussionoftechnologyisstillrelevanttoday,giventhemanyscientificandtechnologicaladvancementsthathaveoccurredinrecentdecades.Hisreferencestotheradio,theairplane,machinetechnology,andthehydrogenbombseemsomewhatfacileinanageofspaceexploration,cellphones,andtheinternet.Technologicalinnovationssuchastheparticleacceleratorandgenesequencinghaveenabledsciencetopenetrateintothemicrostructureoftheorganicandinorganic,openingupnewvistasfortherepresentationandmanipulationofbeings.Hastheessenceoftechnologyandsciencechangedinthelastfiftyyears?

ThedatednessofHeidegger’sexamplesandthetirelesspaceofscientificadvancementappeartoconfirmHeidegger’sclaimsabouttheessenceoftechnologyinsteadofunderminingthem.Thenoveltyofsuchexamplesiswearingoffevenfastertoday,whichsuggeststhatourabilitytobeenchantedbytechnologicalinnovationisdecreasing:

Currentdiscoveriesmakemuchlessofanimpacttodaythandidtheinventionoftheradio,airplanetransportation,andthenuclearbomb.Wearelesssurprisedbynewinnovationsbecausewehavegrowntoexpectthem,andaresoimpatientlyfocusedonhowsciencepromisestoimproveourlivesinthefuturethatthecurrentcuttingedgeoftechnologyisexperiencedaslittlemorethanastopgapmeasurewhoselimitationsarepainfullyapparent.DoesourdecreasingabilitytoexperiencewonderinthefaceoftechnologynotconfirmHeidegger’sclaimthatthehumanbeingis“continuallyapproachingthebrinkofthepossibilityofpursuingandpushingforwardnothingbutwhatisrevealedinordering（Bestellen）,andofderivingallofitsstandardsonthisbasis”（GA7:

26-27/QCT26）?

ThisdangeriswhatHeideggerearliercallsmachination（Machenschaft）.AccordingtoHeidegger,machinationisthetotaldisappearanceofenchantmentandquestioning.Inmachination,beingsarereducedtothatwhichisre-presentableandmakeable（machbar）,whatcanbecalculatedandmanipulated（seeGA65:

108-109,123-127/CP76,86-88）.[3]Theextinctionofwonderis,forHeidegger,theculminationofthetypeoftechnologicalthinkingsoprevalenttodayinthesciences.Thedangerofmachinationcanbeseeninthecontemporaryscientificinquiryintothenatureofhumanbeing,anissuethathaslonggeneratedsomeofthegreatestdifficultiesforscientists.Cognitivescienceattemptstoexplainhumanbehaviorbystudyingsuchthingsasthearchitectureofthebrain,thenatureoflanguage,memory,perceptionsandmotorfunction,aswellasthepossibilityofsimulatinghumanintelligencewithcomputers.Whatiscommontothevariousformsofresearchconductedundertherubricofcognitivescienceisthegeneralassumptionthathumancognition,atleastinprinciple,isrepresentableinmuchthesamewayasothernaturalbeings.Thoughnotallcognitivescientistsespousematerialeliminativismorepiphenomenalism,theattempttouncoverthebasicelementsthatdeterminehumanactivitythreatenstoreducehumanbeingintosomethingthatwenolongerexperienceaswonderous.

WhatdoesHeideggerhavetosayaboutthewaythatscienceandtechnologyconcealthemysteriousanduniquepresencingofbeings,especiallythatofthehumanbeing?

Whatresponsetoscienceandtechnologydoeshedevelopinhisthought?

Inthispaper,wewillexplorethesequestionsbyconsideringhowHeideggerraisestheissueofhumanfreedominhisdiscussionoftechnology.Thismaysoundstrange,becauseisitnotthecasethat,inhislaterthought,Heideggercritiquesthenotionofthewillandsubsumeshumanagencytothegrantingofbeing?

DoesHeidegger’sthinkingnotturnfromDaseintothehistoryofbeing?

TheclaimthatHeideggerjettisonsthenotionofhumanfreedominhislaterthoughtmaybetheprevailingview,butHeidegger’sdiscussionoftechnologysuggestsotherwise.Thisisseenespeciallyinthe1953lectureTheQuestionConcerningTechnology,whereHeideggerexaminesthedifferencebetweendestiny（Geschick）andfate（Schicksal）.Atthebeginningofthelecture,Heideggerstatesthathispurposehereistoprepareafreerelationshiptotechnology.Whatthisrelationshiprevealsabouttheessenceoftechnologyandthepossibilityofhumanfreedomissomethingwewillconsiderindetail.Doesthehistoricaltransformationoftheessenceoftechnologyinanotherbeginninghaveanythingtodowithhumandecision?

Isthedestinyoftechnologyintrinsicallyconnectedtothehumanbeing?

Inaddition,thequestionarisesastowhetherHeidegger’sresponsetomodernscienceandtechnologyismerelycritical.RichardRortystatedrecentlythat“Heideggerhadconsiderablecontemptforthenaturalsciences.”[4]IsthisanoverstatementofHeidegger’scritiqueofmodernscience,ordoesscience,forHeidegger,lackadestiny?

DoesHeidegger’scritiqueofscienceleaveaspaceopenforscientificandtechnologicalinnovationandforthepossibilityofascientificrespectforthequestionofbeing?

WewillconsiderthesequestionssurroundingHeidegger’s‘philosophyofscience’brieflybywayofconclusion.

Aswehaveseen,HeideggerbeginsthelectureTheQuestionConcerningTechnologybyintroducingtheissueoffreedom.Attheoutset,hestatesthathispurposeinthelectureistoprepareafreerelationshiptotechnology,arelationshipthat“opensourDaseintotheessenceoftechnology”（GA7:

7/QCT3）.Whatisfreeaboutthisrelationshiptotechnologyandhowisitdistinguishedfromotherwaysofrelatingtotechnology?

Heideggerprovidesahintofthedirectioninwhichhewilldevelopthisissuewhenhestatesthat“theessenceoftechnology,”incontrasttothewayitisprevalentlyunderstood,“isbynomeansanythingtechnical.”AccordingtoHeidegger,whenwerelatetotechnologyassomethingtechnical,ourrelationshiptoitisnotfree.“Everywhereweremainunfree,chainedtotechnology,whetherwepassionatelyaffirmordenytechnology”or“regarditassomethingneutral”（GA7:

7/QCT4）.Asthissuggests,theopennesstotheessenceoftechnologythatcharacterizesafreerelationshiptotechnologyissignificantlydifferentfromtheusualwaysofrelatingtotechnology.Thelattertreattechnologyassomethingtechnicaland,asaresult,theessenceoftechnologyisnotexperienced.Butwhatisthisopennesstotheessenceoftechnology,andwhydoesitconstituteafreerelationshiptotechnology?

Whatistheessenceoftechnologyifitisnotsomethingtechnical?

Thesequestionsreemergelaterinthelectureafteradiscussionofmodernphysicsandthecurrentconceptionoftechnology,whichwemusttracebywayofpreparation.AccordingtoHeidegger,technologyispresentlydefinedinawaythatis“instrumentalandanthropological.”Technologyisdefinedassomethingproducedbyhumanbeingstoservetheendsthattheypositforthemselves（GA7:

7-8/QCT4-5）.Itisonthisbasisthatitisoftenaskedwhetherweareproperlymasteringtechnologyorwhethertechnologyisslippingoutofourcontrol（GA7:

8/QCT5）.However,asHeideggerpointsout,thisdefinitionoftechnologyisseverelylimitedbecauseitfailstodistinguishbetweenthehandcraftsandmodernmachine-poweredtechnology.Ifitisonlythelatterthatthreatenstooverwhelmusandbecomeourmaster,whatspecificallyisitaboutmoderntechnologythatmakesthispossible?

AsHeideggernotes,itissaidthattherelationshipofmoderntechnologytomodernphysicsiswhatsetsmoderntechnologyapartfromearlierformsoftechnology.Accordingtothisview,moderntechnologyisbasedonmodernphysics（GA7:

14-15/QCT13-14）.Theconceptualandmathematicalfoundationofthelatterprovidesadegreeofprecisionthatallowsmoderntechnologytomanipulatenaturetoanextentpreviouslyunforeseen.Heideggerdoesnotagree,however,thattheessenceofmoderntechnologyisfoundinmodernscience.Instead,hemaintainsthatthereverseisthecase:

Although“moderntechnologymustemployexactphysicalscience,”theclaimthat“moderntechnologyisappliedphysicalscience”isadeceptiveillusion（GA7:

24/QCT23）.

Heidegger’sclaimmayappearstrangetousbecause,ashenotes,modernphysicsarosealmosttwocenturiespriortothedevelopmentofmachine-poweredtechnology（GA7:

22-23/QCT21-22）.Inhisdiscussionoftheessenceofmoderntechnology,however,Hedieggerisnotonlychallengingthepriorityofmodernscience,butalsotheclaimthattechnologyisahumancreation.AccordingtoHeidegger,whatdistinguishesmoderntechnologyfromearlierformsoftechnologyisthattheformerisachallenging（Herausfordern）,“whichputstonaturetheunreasonabledemand[Forderung]thatitsupplyenergythatcanbeextractedandstoredassuch”（GA7:

15/QCT14）.[5]Althoughearlierformsoftechnology