English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Heidegger was an existential philosopher of the 20th century. Postmodernism is built on his philosophy.

2006-12-06 06:42:49 · 3 answers · asked by praveenop 1 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

3 answers

H. analyzes techne by tracing it's context in ancient Greek usage, revolving around one kind of causality -- the efficient cause. The technological has, in the spirit of domination, rendered every phenomenon under an instrumental interpretation. Our relationship to the world is stifled. We no longer seek ends or find our human component in worlding by channeling formal and material causes into telic wonders, but as 'human resources' -- cogs in a machine. The metaphor is prescient, nature is itself nothing but raw material. And reminiscence doesn't solve the problem, luditism is vain. We have to cope with technology disclosing our current orientation to the world. Unless we understand this all-pervading essence of being today, it will proceed silently with or without our consent. A means-means relationship that nullifies the need for humans. We are bulldozed.

2006-12-06 08:11:58 · answer #1 · answered by -.- 3 · 0 0

If Heidegger were still alive, I believe he would ponder why mankind continues to expand albeit, even more rapidly (due aswell to technological advances), provided that he had "no hope" for the future of civilization, civilization continues to consent the indiscrimante growth of population, even when I (and I think Heidegger would also), think most human inceptions are just a consequence of a primal need between often dissimilar and incompatible mating humans, a copulation, a needless copulation. Thus, Heidegger would be really oppressed by the incessant technological development which mostly looks to further a socio-economic status of those who develop it. I think...

2006-12-06 07:13:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Question of Technology lays out his position pretty clearly. Technology simply isn't value neutral (e.g. the assumption that it can be used for good and evil, but technology itself is neither). His point is that technology fundamentally changes who we are and how we relate to the world. If anything, developments since his writing of that essay have proved that he was dead on.

2006-12-06 07:38:50 · answer #3 · answered by silverside 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers