"The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already affected man in his essence. The rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth." (p.14).
I chose to write on this quote because it not only captures the overarching theme to Heidegger's cause for his warning in The Question Concerning Technology, but also what I believe is the overarching theme to this course. More specifically, the necessity to change man's framework on pondering and relating to nature as the solution to our natural crisis is very relatable to some of the Deep Ecology readings we have read. Heidegger explains that our concept of technology is constrained. The way we see nature as a resource and/or commodity will only allow us to view nature through a scientific mind set that, although is still truthful, is ultimately self-destructive. This viewpoint does both dominate and corrupt the consciousness of our mind set. Earlier he cleared the false conceptualized definition of technology. He alluded to the fact that even the days of peasantry they too had a technological relationship with nature. The difference being they nurtured and cultivated the land for the potential 'greatness' of living off the land in appreciation for its abundance. We on the other hand exploit it to its maximum potential in order to gain maximum profit. Thus, our enframed mindset of how we view nature is limited, although truthful, we see nature scientifically and as a commodity. We search for new technological advancements with the priority lying upon either prosperity, convenience, security, etc. What we do not prioritize, which we should, is the potential damage it will cause to our natural surroundings. Until recently have we taken this under consideration as the environmental movement continues to rise in support. When we look at rivers today we see a potential force for hydroelectric energy. Even if the river is seen as aesthetically beautiful, we then commoditize it with our tour boats, boothes, and booze cruises.
So how do we reach this primal truth? Well that is through accepting the existence of our enframed mind set and then working to change it by understanding that our current relationship is unique in its exclusion of other potentially reveling truths. Deep Ecologist and Heidegger call for this change because it will ultimately establish a relationship with the world that is sustainable and moreover happier. The truth that nature brings prosperity monopolizes our conceptions of other potential truths that nature has in store. Heidegger tells us that nature can also reveal truths that are religiously, poetically, aesthetically, and even joyously more pleasing than our current relationship with nature.
Can you too draw similarities to some of the themes we have previously read by Deep Ecology and even other writers from this semester? Do you think it is too late to change our enframed mind set? If so, would further scientific advancement be worth the gamble or do you have any other solution?
I agree with your assessment of Heidegger and of the course. Though we are, in truth, a part of nature, we cannot help but view it as a commodity and a tool to exploit. This, of course, is because we take our livelihood from it. A fundamental aspect of the human species is also its perfectibility; we have translated this desire to improve not only to ourselves but to the world around us, to make our lives easier and more streamlined. All this has come at the cost of nature. Your words remind me of the reading we did on Locke and his discussion of money; nowadays we view everything for its potential monetary value (its value in prolonging and easing our lives), not for its own potential and value in itself.
ReplyDeleteBecause we depend upon nature to survive, I believe it is impossible to fully cease manipulating it, and that should not be our goal. However, we do need to be aware of this enflaming; moreover, we need to make a conscious effort to appreciate nature for more than its role in our own survival. We can have our technology and money, but we must also make nature the subject of our inner thoughts and the profound truths we find in life. We must find the potential it has contained in itself, not as our tool, or we will eventually lose it altogether.
I like when you say that "our current relationship is unique in its exclusion of other potentially reveling truths." Enframing is a curious concept to me here because it is difficult to tell if Heidegger condemns it across the board or if he is alright with it only because it is, as he says, unavoidable. If I think about enframing as a kind of social or cultural relativism that permeates our relationship with technology, then I think he would say, as many of you do, that enframing is not so much the problem as ignorance about the occurrence of enframing. All this is to say that I don't think it's ever too late to change one's enframed mindset at least by becoming more and more aware of it. Maybe reflexivity is what Heidegger is talking about--the multi-faceted evaluation of individual and group actions (in other words, being more careful). If this is what we gain from awareness of enframing, I think technology could be a positive but not overwhelming force in the world.
ReplyDelete