3.31.07 Heidegger: Understanding the world and the effect of technology
Heidegger’s main point in his article is that human beings are trying to understand the world through understanding themselves/ourselves. However, Heidegger prefers using the term Da Sein over human beings because Da Sein accounts for more than just human involvement. Da Sein has to do with engaging in the world through active involvement.
With Da Sein trying to understand the world, Heidegger believes in two fundamental ways to interact with the world. The first way, which Heidegger sees as the basic way for Da Sein to interact, is ready-at-hand. In this fundamental way of interaction, the object in the project becomes invisible to the individual, and the individual does not need to think about working with or using a specific object during involvement with a project. Using the object becomes natural in the specific project leaving the individual free to think about the project itself. Projects also give a way to interpret oneself. The second fundamental way of interaction is present-to-hand. In this way of interaction, an object presents itself or asserts itself, causing the individual to pay attention to the object. For example, an object can break, such as the doorknob on a door. This would bring the attention from the individual away from their intended project and brings their focus to the problem. The object is no longer invisible, the project breaks down and the individual has to work with the project around the object.
Heidegger also describes authenticity and inauthenticity with our involvement or engagement in the world and our projects. The authenticity of a project means that you are true to your projects and thereby you are true to yourself. This gives way for some one to interpret oneself and understand oneself as well as the world. Heidegger states that authenticity is what Da Sein is after or focused on. Inauthenticity is when some one is involved in a project that they do not care about. Care is what drives authenticity and inauthenticity in our projects. Authenticity and inauthenticity are not better or worse than the other one, they are simply different.
Heidegger’s main focus is trying to understand the world, and technology is seen as another way of understanding the world and derivatively another way of understanding ourselves. However, he believes that our way of understanding the world has changed with modern technology. Modern technology is fundamentally different than older forms that we evolved with. Heidegger believes that technology traps us because we don’t understand its essence. Technology is not neutral and when we think it is, we are chained to it and its essence and unable to understand how it affects our lives. Modern technology is threatened to slip from human control. For an example from class, we can look at a river in terms of poesis or in terms of technology. Poesis teaches us a way of understanding the world and what is true. In poesis we appreciate the river and admire it, while in terms of technology, we look at the river as a source and we think of how we might be able to use it like it is a standing reserve.
Heidegger believes that technology prevents us from understanding the world and ourselves, and he says technology makes us think that the world reflects our own purposes, which is the danger of it. Technology makes it unable for us to see the world as it is, so Heidegger wants us to stop and think about all of this. With technology, he wants us to think for ourselves and stop being chained to modern technology and the belief that the world is in existence for our own use. I agree with what Heidegger is saying about us needing to look at things in the way of poesis more often. There really is nothing more for me to say with my opinion on the subject, just that we do not appreciate things in this world as much as we should and that all we do is pretty much just look at things in a way of how we can use them. I do think we need to start admiring things more and stop taking everything for granted. Posted by William Barrett on Tuesday, March 27th, 2007, at 21:57 pm Philosophy
No comments:
Post a Comment