Post your thought upon reading Heidegger here. As with Derrida in you post explain what you took to be crucial point(s) from the essay, as well as highlight the places where Heidegger’s argument was unclear.
See you in class at 8:00 pm.
Useful Links
Group Projects
I understood from Heidegger that technology is not a means but a way of revealing truth. Modern technology also challenges how something works or what something yields, which I think is what he calls Enframing. Enframing is the revealing of having a way to the truth (destining), not revealing the truth itself.
I didn’t quite understand the causality where Heidegger talks about the silversmith. He first says in p. 6 the silversmith is the causa efficiens, then says in p. 8 that the silversmith isn’t a causa efficiens. I wasn’t sure on the point he was trying to make because then he seems to uphold the four ways of being responsible while at the same time trying to explain it by contradicting it?
Let’s see…..I understood that technology is the essence of ambiguity and that current trends challenge our notions on how and why things are able to create (I would almost go far as to say “aesthetically pleasing”). And….that’s about it. You know the anti-drug commercial with Rachael Lee Cook where she smacks an egg with a frying pan and says “This is your brain on drugs”? This is how my brain feels on Heidegger. *thud* I gave this a very good attempt, even with one eye not working, and all I have figured out is that we have a ton of questions that need to be answered.
One of the crucial points I took from Heidegger was that Enframing is the essence of technology. I’m not sure I agree with him on that … of course I can’t say that I’m 100% sure exactly what he means by that either.
I got lost on quite a few parts of the text even after bouncing back and forth trying to grasp some of the meanings. After a while there were just to many -ing words. Revealing, destining, enframing, etc.
p.24 “Enframing is the gathering together that belongs to …”. I think I need a definition of the definition.
We have a very long introduction to a book that goes on and on about how hard the book is to read. If I really wanted to understand the book, I should read it in German. So, I’m told from the start, you aren’t really going to get this book. The intro goes on to say Heidegger is repetitive and will take you on a trip that trip will take a while. Well, this makes me think I can read the first few and last few pages of each essay and I might get it. I didn’t but I was very tempted after the first essay. The intro also went on to say he uses words that sometimes have different meanings, my question is doesn’t this happen in any and all translations? The intro was a waste of time; the book is not that difficult to understand. It wasn’t a walk in the park, but it wasn’t as intimidating as I expected it to be.
For me the most interesting part of the book was in the first few pages of The Question of Technology. What is technology? When I say I’m in the Art and Technology department, people always ask what does that mean? They can understand the part art; it’s the technology word that confuses people.
The definition of technology is an interesting one. At the museum, the kid’s gallery and classrooms are under construction. One of the ideas for the new space is that the space is updated it will have better technology and will be interactive. One of my professors was given the details and has been asked about his thoughts on the new space. He and I talked about this the other day. The museum sees technology as one thing, but we see it as something different. Who is right? I think we all are right – my professor and I have common language in what we feel technology is and the museum shares an idea of what they feel it is.
According to Heidegger we would all be wrong, right?
I understand Heidegger’s claim that technology is a revealing. What I begin to become confused about is weather or not he was arguing that there is a danger that comes along with the development of technology. Is he arguing that there is danger because we as humans would try to add order and structure to each one of these “revealings” that would signify an advancement in technology? Is arguing that the creation of technology can’t be explained by structural means of classification? This is where I became confused, what is the danger?
Okay, this is what I understand Heidegger’s argument to be: The essence of modern technology destines people to reveal that every real thing takes on an existence as a logistical object, something to be ordered around. (Perhaps.) This emphasis on reducing objects to things ready to be ordered around masks their former aspects under the frame of poetics and thus conceals another kind of truth about them. (Maybe?) Also, the essence of modern technology conceals that any truth has been imparted. This is dangerous, insofar as it limits human thinking to only the truth available through technology. However, the contemplation of technology’s essence (the very thing that is dangerous to us) might lead to a “saving power”, a way to see the previous truth, as well. (I think.) Seeing both truths in relation to each other will bring us to a higher truth. Maybe art will take up the role of leading us to the saving power that will bring us to the higher truth. (Possibly.)
I had trouble following this reading, so I could be wrong about any or all of the above. I got lost in the wording of this essay. Is there another translation? I think maybe seeing two versions would help me to better understand what he’s saying. This does not seem to me to be as exhaustive a look at the path to truth as he says. For example, rhetorically, he gets to the “saving power” being found in the dangerous thing through two lines of poetry (p.28). Another example is p.31, where Goethe’s use of one word in place of another is enough precedent to inextricably link that which endures with that which is granted.
Mostly, however (though I’m not saying I would have understood the reading were this not the case), I was distracted by wondering exactly how much of a Nazi Heidegger was. I understand from lovely Wikipedia that he was more of a nationalist Nazi, and that according to his own comments after WWII he did not believe in the racist aspects of Nazism. However, for me his beliefs in this case have a big impact on this particular arguement, because it is so rooted in a metaphysical discussion of higher truth, saving powers, caretaking, and individual responsibility. I know the question of his personal beliefs on Nazism can’t be answered to a useful degree, this just bugged me throughout the reading.
What I think I got from it is that in order to understand technology we need to find out what it really means, what he calls enframing -revealing the real. According to Heidegger, the “essence” of technology. In reference to technology, when he says, ‘how would it stand with the will to master it?’ (pg.5), I do think it is a question of how we can come to terms with technology if it does encompass/comprehend us in its own organizational type process.
In his concept of enframing, I can understand our control over technology is an illusion. What I didn’t really understand is in Heidegger’s view, (concerning danger) why is modern technology the highest stage of misrepresentation of the essence of being human?
I look forward to the lecture on Tuesday. Hopefully, David (our human cliff notes) can help make things a little more clear.
What we have on our hands is a gerund fest. Sorry- I couldn’t resist. I too found myself wondering if this is considered a decent translation, wishing I could speak German to find out for myself. The text comes dangerously close to the ramblings on of some of my fellow artists who believe that running you around in semantic circles elevates their work to a higher level, thus attaining status within the circle of those who praise the inaccessibility of high art.
Okay – so technology isn’t about what we call the technology itself – it’s merely the means of revealing the real.
Somewhere in the midst of standing-reserve/unconcealment, I thought of how digital works fall into the “pull” category since all of the information is already there from the start, even if the work follows a timeline. ???????