Yeah, the first thing to say is that I'm not against technology. I've never spoken against technology, nor would I demonize technology. But I only try to understand the nature of
technology. When you quote this thought about the danger
of the atom bomb and the even greater danger of technology, I'm thinking of what today is developing as
biophysics, that in the foreseeable future, we'll be able
to do this with human beings, that is, construct them in their organic nature
as one needs them: Martin Heidegger is one of the most well renowned
philosophers of all time. As he is primarily known for his work Being
and Time, there is a whole host of other work that does not get the attention it truly deserves. One of those underrated works is the Question
Concerning Technology. This video over the Question Concerning Technology is a part two follow up to Being and Time. While I want to make this video as accessible
as possible to all people who haven't really learned the
theory surrounding Being and Time, it is helpful understanding Being and Time
and the backdrop he uses in approaching the Question Concerning Technology. So if part one and Heidegger's work Being
and Time interests you, feel free to take some time
to watch that video first, as I made Being and Time as easy as I could. Yet, if this does not interest you, I will
make this video as accessible as humanly possible for you. As Being and Time is one of the single most
important pieces of philosophy in the 20th century,
I still find Heidegger's essay on the Question Concerning
Technology to be one of the best works in philosophy
and one of the very best critiques of modernity that we have. As Heidegger is really known for his phenomenology and his existentialism, I find that this essay really lends itself towards critical theory. And as we see that this work is not a separation
of phenomenology or existentialism, it fundamentally changes the makeup of how we view the modern
condition and how we view being with technology. Our prior conceptions of technology was one of exterior systems. We ultimately saw technology as a mere separate
entity from us. As Heidegger rejects the separation of object
and subject, the separation of you and the world, Heidegger
also rejects the separation of technology and us. To Heidegger, humans are questioning beings. Within being and the fundamental care and
interaction as human beings, questioning and curiosity
is woven within that framework. This is why the fundamental meaning of technology
is so important. In a weird way, we are technology and technology
is us. So, what is technology? And what does technology mean? To Heidegger, to understand technology, we
ultimately need to understand the essence of technology. When concerning technology, we don't typically
think about the essence, we think about how that technology affects
us, the utility of that specific technology at
hand, and the like. And while these questions are not bad questions, and they are necessary to some extent. Heidegger wants us to look directly at the
essence of technology. You may be watching this on a computer monitor, you may be watching this on a smart phone,
and when asked about the essence of technology,
you may use a smart phone, you may use a monitor as an example of the essence of technology. But, an example of an actual physical form
of technology isn't actually the essence of technology. To Heidegger, we as humans, are actually kind
of blind to technology. Heidegger quotes this as follows: "We will never experience our relationship to the essence of technology, so long as we merely represent and pursue the technological." Heidegger is trying to convey that so long
as we remain in a certain attitude towards technology,
towards its ultimate utility, its purpose, we will never be able to truly understand technology,
its essence, and even its relation to us. There is something else that Heidegger wants
to dispel: we have this common notion in society that
technology is something neutral, that it holds absolutely no moral baggage
to it. Heidegger rejects this outright and claims
that technology has all kinds of moral baggage to it. Technology, changes the entire trajectory of society as
a whole. And with that, in no possible realm could
technology simply be a means, in no realm could technology simply
be a neutral tool. Its important to understand that Heidegger
is approaching this question of technology, as a metaphysical endeavor. He wants to understand the fundamental essence
of technology while also not rejecting the prior notions
of technology actually being an external means and human
activity. In Heidegger's eyes, the metaphysical essence
of technology does not have to contradict the truth surrounding
the means of technology and the human activity around
it. Ultimately, he is trying to convey, that it
is true that technology is a means, and ultimately that
technology is a form of human activity. Yet, he also wants to convey that actually
doesn't get at the essence of technology, and that both of
these viewpoints don't necessarily have to be wrong and contradict one another. So moving forward, there are three essential
claims Heidegger is making in the Question Concerning
Technology: One being, that technology is not a mere instrument, its not a mere neutral tool. It is ultimately a way of understanding the world. The second, is technology is not necessarily
a human activity alone, but ultimately technology develops beyond
human control. And almost beyond human comprehension. And then the third, is technology is the actual
highest danger. It is something that we must use extreme caution
towards. Not necessarily in a physical sense, but in a metaphysical and conceptual sense. That we risk seeing the world only through
a technological lens. So technology as a means of understanding
the world, lets dive into that. To identify the essence of technology, it
is to ultimately lay bear technology as a clearing. In Heideggerian terminology, a clearing is
something that reveals itself to us. Like when you are in the middle of the woods and there is a clearing to an open
field, conceptually, a clearing is a way of exposing
an idea. A good visual of this is the human metaphor
of a light-bulb going off when you understand
something. Technology operates in this way. Technology sways our being, our Dasein, as a way of understanding the
world. As a way of exposing more. Heidegger quotes this as follows: "Technology, is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole
realm for the essence of technology will open itself
up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth." It can reveal things about us. It can reveal things of technology, that we didn't once
know. Heidegger ultimately places a lot of emphasis
on revealing meaning for us as well through the lens of
technology. So as a technological revelation, Heidegger
also focuses on how we interact with the world our being, in a modern technological context. In this modern technological context, the
world is partitioned away into what Heidegger calls
a Standing Reserve. What Heidegger means by standing reserve,
is that the world is essentially one large resource, waiting
to be used, waiting to be processed. In the present, the resource focused world
is already so ingrained into our being, that even hearing
something like the world is one large resource, waiting
to be exploited, waiting to be used, does not even seem problematic in the slightest to many. Yet, lets take a step back and understand
the potential benevolence of this very outlook. With Being and Time, understanding the unity between you, the world,
the plants, the animals. In this standing reserve context, in this modern outlook. We see that we run the risk of partitioning
ourselves away. In pre-modernity, there was a fundamental
relationship that Heidegger recognized between nature and people. That the trees were my home, that ultimately the trees were used to create a home. That if I needed to light a fire, that the trees were available
to me in that relationship. In a standing reserve, not so much. The trees, the resources themselves, become
an abstraction. There is no relationship to you when the only
concern is how much money am I going to make from
these trees? How much money and utility is going to come
from this plot of land? Heidegger notices when there is no relational
context to how you interact with the world. It festers elsewhere. If the trees, if the soil, if the water, are
all resources to be used. How about people? Given the unity between all. What will stop us from looking at people in
the exact same context? As an abstraction, used to make money. Used to garner utility. This is an ultimate danger in what technology
poses to us. And what ultimately, modernity failed to grasp. And these are only the most visceral of examples. Modes of communication, organization, have
all been affected from this technological mode of being. Friendly gatherings aren't mere friendly gatherings
anymore. These inner human affairs are partitioned
away into networking. They're partitioned away into career gain. This removes the same notion of friendly relationships,
of authentic companionship. And while Heidegger would certainly admit
that these relationships can still exist, but, in this
technological mode of being.This realm of human stock, this realm of hyper-productivity, we may only
view humans and companionship as a means of utility. How about the semantics and language structure
surrounding organizations? We see businesses, we see corporations, completely partition people away into resources. We see that the departments that manage these
people are actually called human resources or HR. In this context, we see that these executives,
these CEO's, these business owners don't really see their
employees as people. They see them as actual tangible resources. In this way, this is how technology is not a mere neutral
tool. It is a clearing, it is a revelation of human
interaction in the world. And an ultimate arbiter of change in this
regard. By revealing beings as no more than the measurable, the manipulative, technology ultimately reduces
beings into not-beings, as Heidegger put. As people, as plants, as animals, are standing
reserve, we lose the very core element of what makes us
beings. That is our relationship to one another, and
our direct importance to one another. Because, if there is more of us, if there
are more trees, more water, we have a standing reserve of
more. Therefore, we lose our sacred elements as
beings. Not only this, but, we ultimately lose concern
over the actual power that nature harnesses. As we become more technologically adept, as we grow as a species, we almost come into
play as a war like entity against nature. Where the ultimate technological goal is to
harness nature, the ultimate technological goal is to control
it. Pre-industrial societies did not used to look
at nature like this. We looked at nature as a way in how we can
work with it. Heidegger refers to these different modes
of revealing, of working with nature, and controlling nature,
as poiesis. The poiesis of the past, the revealing of
nature of the past, was more in line with poetry in Heidegger's
eyes. And in the poiesis of today, it is much more
brutal, it is much more jagged, and it is much less human
in his eyes. To Heidegger, the pre-industrial trades of
the past reflect this. Heidegger writes: "If he is to become a true cabinet maker,
he makes himself answer and respond above all to the different
kinds of wood, and to the shapes slumbering within wood, to wood as it enters into man's dwelling with all the hidden riches of its essence. In fact, this relatedness to wood is what maintains
the whole craft. Without that relatedness, the craft will never
be anything but empty busywork, any occupation with it
will be determined exclusively by business concerns. Every handicraft, all human dealings, are
constantly in that danger." Heidegger is claiming that the poiesis of
today, does not concern itself with relationships. It's concern is productivity. It's concern is with utility, and ultimately
it's concern is with business dealings. Therefore, that direct relationship with nature
is often lost. Again, technology offers itself up as a revelation. As a way and means of understanding. Rather than just a neutral tool. Further, it offers itself up as a state of
mind. A state of mind that has completely encapsulated the
west in Heidegger's eyes. This mindset threatens the authenticity of
our lives, it threatens our relationships, and one of the most important points according to Heidegger is how it makes us complacent to existential
danger. With this mindset, we could ruin ourselves. Think about 2020, how often do we hear every
other month, about the limited amount of time left we have
to fix climate change. In this technological mode of being, we don't
really have to worry about climate change, because
whenever climate change happens in the next 30 to 40
years, well, guess what? We'll have the technological capability in
dealing with that. But, Heidegger would ask the question: how
would you know that? How would you know that we would actually
have the technological capability 20-30 years later? In a paradoxical sense, he'd point out the
sheer hypocrisy in thinking this, while also abiding by science. We create an almost unscientific worship of
science. Heidegger points out that there is an ultimate
responsibility in how we deal with technology today. With our central attitude towards it, and
our basic utilization of it. Further, he would argue that our lack of understanding
of the essence and metaphysical way of technology is even more harmful. In the end, Heidegger is not anti-science,
he's not anti-technology. Rather, he wants to fight against the actual
technological modes of being that encapsulate the west. In a weird way, he believes that this technological
way of being will actually kill itself in the
end. Mimicking the Marxist accelerationism of capitalism, ironically enough, Heidegger believes that
people will understand the sacredness of pre-industrial
society, and that even with our modern technology,
we will still be able to find a way to live like
we did before. The Question Concerning Technology ultimately
is a critique of our modern ways of being, and an inquiry
into the metaphysical nature of technology. Its again important to note that Heidegger
is not anti-technology. Rather, he is against the sheer attitude around technology, the hyper obsession with
resources and the hyper obsession with productivity
that comes with that attitude. As Heidegger pointed out, technology is not
technological. Technology is a mode of being and its a mode
of revealing. We should view the Question Concerning Technology
as a reminder to look deeper into something. That the metaphysical may not be dead, and
that we should not become complacent with technology. We should not rely on the idea that technology
will solve every single existential crisis. And further, we should examine our relationships
closer, we should not partition important things like
technology away into a neutral arbiter, or a neutral
tool. As we can potentially jeopardize everything
that makes us human, and the very meaning that encompasses our
humanity. Hey, guys! Thank you so much for watching. I want to give a quick message: this video
probably came out a little bit later than what I would have
wanted as I have been doing a collaboration with
the YouTuber 1Dime, over a specific political
topic. And you guys will see that when it releases. Ultimately, I have a really important video
coming up after this, and a really important announcement
and request for you guys. So, be on the look out for that. Ultimately, again, thank you very much for
watching this. This video was extremely difficult to make
as in traditional Heideggarian fashion. It was super difficult to decipher through. But, hopefully I pulled this off, hopefully
I was able to make something really easy to
digest without watering it down. So, ultimately guys, feel free to check out
my Twitch. This whole background is setup for Twitch,
this is a subscribe board. So, if anyone of you subscribe I will put
you on this board. I actually ran out of room on the board, which
is wonderful news, so I'm going to start putting sticky notes
on the wall. But, if you guys want to subscribe I will
put you on the wall. Also, check out my instagram, I always post
clips, stuff like that, pictures, miscellaneous stuff like that. Feel free to follow me on Twitter as well. So ultimately, thank you guys for watching! Music: Kevin Macleod All necessary resources and citations in the
description!