UnderstandingHeideggeronTechnologyTheNewAtlantis

MartinHeidegger(18891976)wasperhapsthemostdivisivephilosopherofthetwentiethcentury.Manyhold
himtobethemostoriginalandimportantthinkerofhisera.Othersspurnhimasanobscurantistanda
charlatan,whilestillothersseehisreprehensibleaffiliationwiththeNazisasareasontoignoreorrejecthis
thinkingaltogether.ButHeideggersundoubtedinfluenceoncontemporaryphilosophyandhisuniqueinsight
intotheplaceoftechnologyinmodernlifemakehimathinkerworthyofcarefulstudy.
InhislandmarkbookBeingandTime(1927),HeideggermadetheboldclaimthatWesternthoughtfromPlato
onwardhadforgottenorignoredthefundamentalquestionofwhatitmeansforsomethingtobetobe
presentforuspriortoanyphilosophicalorscientificanalysis.Hesoughttoclarifythroughouthisworkhow,
sincetheriseofGreekphilosophy,Westerncivilizationhadbeenonatrajectorytowardnihilism,andhe
believedthatthecontemporaryculturalandintellectualcrisisourdeclinetowardnihilismwasintimately
linkedtothisforgettingofbeing.Onlyarediscoveryofbeingandtherealminwhichitisrevealedmightsave
modernman.
Inhislaterwritingsontechnology,whichmainlyconcernusinthisessay,Heideggerdrawsattentionto
technologysplaceinbringingaboutourdeclinebyconstrictingourexperienceofthingsastheyare.Heargues
thatwenowviewnature,andincreasinglyhumanbeingstoo,onlytechnologicallythatis,weseenatureand
peopleonlyasrawmaterialfortechnicaloperations.Heideggerseekstoilluminatethisphenomenonandtofind
awayofthinkingbywhichwemightbesavedfromitscontrollingpower,towhich,hebelieves,modern
civilizationbothinthecommunistEastandthedemocraticWesthasbeenshackled.Wemightescapethis
bondage,Heideggerargues,notbyrejectingtechnology,butbyperceivingitsdanger.
HeideggersLifeandInfluence
Thesonofasexton,MartinHeideggerwasborninsouthernGermanyin1889andwasschooledforthe
priesthoodfromanearlyage.Hebeganhistrainingasaseminarystudent,butthenconcentratedincreasingly
onphilosophy,naturalscience,andmathematics,receivingadoctorateinphilosophyfromtheUniversityof
Freiburg.ShortlyaftertheendoftheGreatWar(inwhichheservedbrieflynearitsconclusion),hestartedhis
teachingcareeratFreiburgin1919astheassistanttoEdmundHusserl,thefounderofphenomenology.
HeideggerscoursessoonbecamepopularamongGermanysstudents.In1923hebegantoteachatthe
UniversityofMarburg,andthentookHusserlspostatFreiburgafterHusserlretiredfromactiveteachingin
1928.ThepublicationofBeingandTimein1927hadsealedhisreputationinEuropeasasignificantthinker.
Heideggersinfluenceisindicatedinpartbythereputationofthosewhostudiedunderhimandwhorespected
hisintellectualforce.HannahArendt,HansGeorgGadamer,HansJonas,JacobKlein,KarlLwith,andLeo
StraussalltookclasseswithHeidegger.Amongthesestudents,eventhosewhobrokefromHeideggers
teachingsunderstoodhimtobethedeepestthinkerofhistime.Althoughhebecamerecognizedastheleading
figureofexistentialism,hedistancedhimselffromtheexistentialismofphilosopherssuchasJeanPaulSartre.
InHeideggersview,theyturnedhisuniquethoughtaboutmansbeingintheworldintoyetanothernihilistic
assertionofthedominanceofhumanbeingsoverallthings.Heinsistedthattermssuchasanxiety,care,

resoluteness,andauthenticity,whichhadbecomefamousthroughBeingandTime,wereforhimelementsof
theopennessofbeinginwhichwefindourselves,notpsychologicalcharacteristicsordescriptionsofhuman
willfulness,assomeexistentialistsunderstoodthem.
HeideggersintellectualreputationintheUnitedStatesprecededmuchdirectacquaintancewithhiswork
becauseoftheprominenceofexistentialismandtheinfluenceofhisstudents,severalofwhomhadfled
GermanyfortheUnitedStateslongbeforetranslatorsbeganproducingEnglisheditionsofhisimportantworks.
(BeingandTimewasfirsttranslatedin1962.)Arendtinparticular,whohadimmigratedtoAmericaintheearly
1940s,encouragedtheintroductionofherteachersworkintotheUnitedStates.Heideggersmostpopularif
indirectsignificancewasduringexistentialismsheydayfromtheendoftheSecondWorldWaruntilitsnearly
simultaneousapotheosisandcollapseonthehazystreetsofSanFrancisco.LateSixtiesBeInsmass
gatheringsincelebrationofAmericancountercultureappropriatedexistentialistthemesHeideggers
intellectualrigorhadbeenturnedintomush,butitwasstillmoreorlessrecognizablyHeideggerianmush.
HerbertMarcuse,aherotothemoreintellectualamongtheSixtiesgaggle,wasanearlystudentof
Heideggers,andhisbookssuchasErosandCivilizationandOneDimensionalManowesomethingtohim,if
moretoFreudand,especially,Marx.
Afterthe1960s,HeideggersintellectualradicalismbecameincreasinglydomesticatedbytheAmerican
academy,wherewildspiritssooftengotodiealingeringbourgeoisdeath.Hisworksweretranslated,taught,
andtransformedintothesesfitfortenurecommitteereview.Still,HeideggersinfluenceamongAmerican
philosophyprofessorshasremainedlimited(althoughnotentirelynegligible),sincemostofthemare,as
Nietzschemightsay,essentiallygastroenterologistswithatheoreticalbent.Heideggerbecamemoreinfluential,
thoughusuallyindirectly,forthewaysartistsandarchitectstalkabouttheirworknoonecanconjureabuilt
spacequiteaswellasHeideggerdoes,forinstanceinhisessayBuildingDwellingThinking.Andmuchof
Heideggercanalsobeheardinthedeconstructionistlingoofliterarytheorythatoverthepastfortyyearshas
nearlykilledliterature.TheresultisthatHeideggerisnowaminoracademicindustryinmanyAmerican
humanitiesdepartments,evenasheremainsrelativelyunappreciatedbymostprofessionalphilosophers.
ButHeideggersinfluenceisnotonlylimitedbythelackofrespectmostofourphilosophyprofessorshave
towardhiswork.MoretroublingformanybothwithinandoutsidetheacademyisHeideggersaffiliationwiththe
NazisbeforeandduringtheSecondWorldWar.HismentorEdmundHusserlwasdismissedfromtheUniversity
ofFreiburgin1933becauseofhisJewishbackground.Heideggerbecamerectoroftheuniversityinthatsame
year,andjoinedtheNaziparty,ofwhichheremainedamemberuntiltheendofthewar.Eventhoughhe
resignedtherectorshipafterlessthanayearanddistancedhimselffromthepartynotlongafterjoining,he
neverpubliclydenouncedthepartynorpubliclyregrettedhismembership.(Heissaidtohaveonceremarked
privatelytoastudentthathispoliticalinvolvementwiththeNaziswasthegreateststupidityofhislife.)Afterthe
war,ontherecommendationoferstwhilefriendssuchasKarlJaspers,hewasbannedbytheAlliedforcesfrom
teachinguntil1951.
Forobviousreasons,someofHeideggersfriendsandfollowershave,fromtheendofthewartothepresent
day,obfuscatedtherelationshipbetweenHeideggersthoughtandhispolitics.Theyaresurelyaidedinthisby
Heideggersmasterfulambiguityforhimitreallydoesdependonwhatthemeaningofthewordisis.His
admirersdonotwanthisworktobeignoredpreemptivelybecauseofhisaffiliationwiththeNazis.Heidegger,

afterall,wasnotHitlersconfidant,oranarchitectofthewarandtheexterminationcamps,butathinkerwho
engagedinseveralshamefulactionstowardJews,andforatimesupportedtheNazispublicly,andthoughthe
couldleadtheregimeintellectually.
ThismatterhascomeunderrenewedattentionwiththerecentreleaseofHeideggersBlackNotebooks,which
areakindofphilosophicaldiaryhekeptinthe1930sand1940sandwhosecontentsfillasixhundredpage
volume.Inhiswill,Heideggerhadrequestedthatthesenotebooksnotbepublisheduntilaftertherestofhis
extensiveworkwasreleased.Thenotebookseditor,PeterTrawny,reportsthattheycontainhostilereferences
toworldJewrythatindicatethatantiSemitismtiedintohisphilosophy.Carefulstudyofthesenotebookswill
berequiredtodeterminewhethertheyinfactprovidenewevidenceofHeideggersantiSemitismandaffiliation
withtheNazisthatisevenmoredamningthanwhatisalreadywidelyknown.Noonewhohasexamined
Heideggerissurprisedbywhathasbeenreported.ButthequestionstillremainswhetherHeideggersthought
andpoliticsareintrinsicallylinked,orwhether,ashisapologistswouldhaveit,histhoughtisnomore(andin
fact,less)relatedtohispoliticsthanitistohisinterestinsoccerandskiing.Intruth,itwouldbesurprisingifthe
connectionbetweenthephilosophyandthepoliticalbeliefsandactionsofathinkerofHeideggersrankwere
simplyrandom.
Infact,HeideggersassociationwiththeNaziswasfarfromaccidental.Oneofhisinfamousremarksonpolitics
wasastatementabouttheinnertruthandgreatnessofNationalSocialismthathemadeina1935lecture
course.Ina1953republicationofthatspeechasIntroductiontoMetaphysics,Heideggerappendeda
parentheticalclarification,whichheclaimedwaswrittenbutnotdeliveredin1935,ofwhathebelievedthat
innertruthandgreatnesstobe:theencounterbetweenglobaltechnologyandmodernhumanity.Some
scholars,takingtheaddedcommentasacriticismoftheNazis,pointtoHeideggersexplanation,followingthe
speechspublication,thatthemeaningoftheoriginalcommentwouldhavebeencleartoanyonewho
understoodthespeechcorrectly.Butperhapsweshouldnotbesurprisedtofindathinkersoworriedabout
globaltechnologyaffiliatingwiththeNaziPartyinthefirstplace.TheNaziswereopposedtothetwodominant
formsofgovernmentofthedaythatHeideggerassociatedwithglobaltechnology,communismand
democracy.InanotherofHeideggersinfamouspoliticalremarks,madeinthatsame1935lecture,heclaimed
thatRussiaandAmerica,seenmetaphysically,areboththesame:thesamehopelessfrenzyofenchained
technologyandoftherootlessorganizationoftheaverageman.TheNazisrhetoricaboutbloodandsoiland
themythologyofanancient,wise,andvirtuousGermanVolkmightalsohaveappealedtosomeoneconcerned
withthehomogenizingconsequencesofglobalizationandtechnology.Morebroadly,Heideggersthought
alwayswasandremainedilliberal,tendingtoencompassallmatters,philosophyandpoliticsamongthem,ina
singleperspective,ignoringthefreedomofmostpeopletoactindependently.Thewaysinwhichliberal
democraciespromoteexcellenceandusefulcompetitionwerenotamongthepoliticalideastowhich
Heideggersthoughtwasopen.Histotalizing,illiberalthoughtmadehisjoiningtheNazismuchmorelikelythan
hiscondemningthem.
ThestudyofHeideggerisbothdangerousanddifficultthewayheistaughttodaythreatenstoobscurehis
thoughtsconnectiontohispoliticswhileatthesametimetransforminghisworkintofodderfortheaimless
curiosityoftheacademicindustry.Heideggerwouldnotbesurprisedtodiscoverthatheisnowpartofthe
problemthathemeanttoaddress.Butif,asHeideggerhoped,hisworksaretohelpusunderstandthe

challengestechnologypresents,wemuststudyhimbothcarefullyandcautiouslycarefully,toappreciatethe
depthandcomplexityofhisthought,andcautiously,inlightofhisassociationwiththeNazis.
TechnologyasRevealing
Heideggersconcernwithtechnologyisnotlimitedtohiswritingsthatareexplicitlydedicatedtoit,andafull
appreciationofhisviewsontechnologyrequiressomeunderstandingofhowtheproblemoftechnologyfitsinto
hisbroaderphilosophicalprojectandphenomenologicalapproach.(Phenomenology,forHeidegger,isa
methodthattriestoletthingsshowthemselvesintheirownway,andnotseetheminadvancethrougha
technicalortheoreticallens.)ThemostimportantargumentinBeingandTimethatisrelevantforHeideggers
laterthinkingabouttechnologyisthattheoreticalactivitiessuchasthenaturalsciencesdependonviewsoftime
andspacethatnarrowtheunderstandingimplicitinhowwedealwiththeordinaryworldofactionandconcern.
Wecannotconstructmeaningfuldistanceanddirection,orunderstandtheopportunitiesforaction,from
sciencesneutral,mathematicalunderstandingofspaceandtime.Indeed,thisdetachedandobjective
scientificviewoftheworldrestrictsoureverydayunderstanding.Ourordinaryuseofthingsandourconcernful
dealingswithintheworldarepathwaystoamorefundamentalandmoretruthfulunderstandingofmanand
beingthanthesciencesprovidescienceflattenstherichnessofordinaryconcern.Byplacingscienceback
withintherealmofexperiencefromwhichitoriginates,andbyexaminingthewayourscientificunderstandingof
time,space,andnaturederivesfromourmorefundamentalexperienceoftheworld,Heidegger,togetherwith
histeacherHusserlandsomeofhisstudentssuchasJacobKleinandAlexandreKoyr,helpedtoestablish
newwaysofthinkingaboutthehistoryandphilosophyofscience.
Heideggerappliesthisunderstandingofexperienceinlaterwritingsthatarefocusedexplicitlyontechnology,
wherehegoesbeyondthetraditionalviewoftechnologyasmachinesandtechnicalprocedures.Heinstead
triestothinkthroughtheessenceoftechnologyasawayinwhichweencounterentitiesgenerally,including
nature,ourselves,and,indeed,everything.HeideggersmostinfluentialworkontechnologyisthelectureThe
QuestionConcerningTechnology,publishedin1954,whichwasarevisedversionofparttwoofafourpart
lectureserieshedeliveredinBremenin1949(hisfirstpublicspeakingappearancesincetheendofthewar).
TheseBremenlectureshaverecentlybeentranslatedintoEnglish,forthefirsttime,byAndrewJ.Mitchell.
IntroducingtheBremenlectures,Heideggerobservesthatbecauseoftechnology,alldistancesintimeand
spaceareshrinkingandyetthehastysettingasideofalldistancesbringsnonearnessfornearnessdoesnot
consistinasmallamountofdistance.Thelecturessetouttoexaminewhatthisnearnessisthatremains
absentandisevenwardedoffbytherestlessremovalofdistances.Asweshallsee,wehavebecomealmost
incapableofexperiencingthisnearness,letaloneunderstandingit,becauseallthingsincreasinglypresent
themselvestousastechnological:weseethemandtreatthemaswhatHeideggercallsastandingreserve,
suppliesinastoreroom,asitwere,piecesofinventorytobeorderedandconscripted,assembledand
disassembled,setupandsetaside.Everythingapproachesusmerelyasasourceofenergyorassomething
wemustorganize.Wetreatevenhumancapabilitiesasthoughtheywereonlymeansfortechnological
procedures,aswhenaworkerbecomesnothingbutaninstrumentforproduction.Leadersandplanners,along
withtherestofus,aremerehumanresourcestobearranged,rearranged,anddisposedof.Eachandevery
thingthatpresentsitselftechnologicallytherebylosesitsdistinctiveindependenceandform.Wepushaside,
obscure,orsimplycannotsee,otherpossibilities.

Commonattemptstorectifythissituationdontsolvetheproblemandinsteadarepartofit.Wetendtobelieve
thattechnologyisameanstoourendsandahumanactivityunderourcontrol.Butintruthwenowconceiveof
means,ends,andourselvesasfungibleandmanipulable.Controlanddirectionaretechnologicalcontroland
direction.Ourattemptstomastertechnologystillremainwithinitswalls,reinforcingthem.AsHeideggersaysin
thethirdofhisBremenlectures,allthisopiningconcerningtechnologythecommoncritiqueoftechnology
thatdenouncesitsharmfuleffects,aswellasthebeliefthattechnologyisnothingbutablessing,andespecially
theviewthattechnologyisaneutraltooltobewieldedeitherforgoodorevilallofthisonlyshowshowthe
dominanceoftheessenceoftechnologyordersintoitsplunderingevenandespeciallythehumanconceptions
concerningtechnology.Thisisbecausewithalltheseconceptionsandvaluationsoneisfromtheoutset
unwittinglyinagreementthattechnologywouldbeameanstoanend.Thisinstrumentalviewoftechnologyis
correct,butitdoesnotshowustechnologysessence.Itiscorrectbecauseitseessomethingpertinentabout
technology,butitisessentiallymisleadingandnottruebecauseitdoesnotseehowtechnologyisawaythatall
entities,notmerelymachinesandtechnicalprocesses,nowpresentthemselves.
Ofcourse,weretherenowayoutoftechnologicalthinking,Heideggersownstandpoint,howeversophisticated,
wouldalsobetrappedwithinit.Heattemptstoshowawayoutawaytothinkabouttechnologythatisnot
itselfbeholdentotechnology.Thisleadsusintoarealmthatwillbefamiliartothoseacquaintedwith
Heideggersworkonbeing,thecentralissueinBeingandTimeandonethatisalsoprominentinsomeofthe
Bremenlectures.Thebasicphenomenonthatbelongstogetherwithbeingistruth,orrevealing,whichisthe
phenomenonHeideggerbringsforwardinhisdiscussioninTheQuestionConcerningTechnology.Thingscan
showorrevealthemselvestousindifferentways,anditisattentiontothisthatwillhelpusrecognizethat
technologyisitselfoneoftheseways,butonlyone.Otherkindsofrevealing,andattentiontotherealmoftruth
andbeingassuch,willallowustoexperiencethetechnologicalwithinitsownbounds.
Onlythenwillanotherwholerealmfortheessenceoftechnology...openitselfuptous.Itistherealmof
revealing,i.e.,oftruth.Placingourselvesbackinthisrealmavoidsthereductionofthingsandofourselvesto
meresuppliesandreserves.Thisstep,however,doesnotguaranteethatwewillfullyenter,livewithin,or
experiencethisrealm.Norcanwepredictwhattechnologysfateorourswillbeoncewedoexperienceit.We
canatmostsaythatolderandmoreenduringwaysofthoughtandexperiencemightbereinvigoratedandre
inspired.Heideggerbelieveshisworktobepreparatory,illuminatingwaysofbeingandofbeinghumanthatare
notmerelytechnological.
OnewaybywhichHeideggerbelieveshecanenterthisrealmisbyattendingtotheoriginalmeaningofcrucial
wordsandthephenomenatheyreveal.Originallanguagewordsthatprecedeexplicitphilosophical,
technological,andscientificthoughtandsometimessurviveincolloquialspeechoftenshowswhatistrue
moretellinglythanmodernspeechdoes.(SomepoetsareforHeideggerbetterguidesonthequestfortruth
thanprofessionalphilosophers.)Thetwodecisivelanguages,Heideggerthinks,areGreekandGermanGreek
becauseourphilosophicalheritagederivesitstermsfromit(oftenindistortedform),andGerman,becauseits
wordscanoftenbetracedtoanoriginundistortedbyphilosophicalreflectionorbyLatininterpretationsofthe
Greek.(SomecriticsbelievethatHeideggersrelianceonwhattheythinkarefancifuletymologieswarpshis
understanding.)

Muchmoreworrisome,however,isthatHeideggersthought,whilepromisingacomprehensiveviewofthe
essenceoftechnology,byvirtueofitsinclusivenessthreatenstoblurdistinctionsthatarecentraltohuman
concerns.Moreover,hisemphasisontechnologysbroadanduncannyscopeignoresoroccludesthe
importanceandpossibilityofethicalandpoliticalchoice.Thistwofoldproblemismostevidentinthebestknown
passagefromthesecondBremenlecture:Agricultureisnowamechanizedfoodindustry,inessencethesame
astheproductionofcorpsesinthegaschambersandexterminationcamps,thesameastheblockadingand
starvingofcountries,thesameastheproductionofhydrogenbombs.Fromwhatstandpointcouldmechanized
agricultureandtheNazisexterminationcampsbeinessencethesame?Ifthereissuchastandpoint,should
itnotbeignoredoratleastmodifiedbecauseitoverlooksortrivializesthemostsignificantmattersofchoice,in
thiscasetheabilitytodetectanddealwithgraveinjustice?Whateverthefullandsubtlemeaningofinessence
thesameis,Heideggerfailstoaddressthedifferenceinethicalweightbetweenthetwophenomenahe
compares,ortoshowapathforjustpoliticalchoice.WhileHeideggerpurportstoattendtoconcrete,ordinary
experience,hedoesnotconsiderseriouslyjusticeandinjusticeasfundamentalaspectsofthisexperience.
Instead,Heideggerclaimsthatwhatishorrifyingisnotanyoftechnologysparticularharmfuleffectsbutwhat
transposes...allthatisoutofitspreviousessencethatistosay,whatisdangerousisthattechnology
displacesbeingsfromwhattheyoriginallywere,hinderingourabilitytoexperiencethemtruly.
WhatIstheEssenceofTechnology?
LetusnowfollowHeideggersunderstandingoftechnologymoreexactingly,relyingontheBremenlecturesand
TheQuestionConcerningTechnology,andbeginningwithfourpointsofHeideggerscritique(someofwhich
wehavealreadytouchedon).
First,theessenceoftechnologyisnotsomethingwemakeitisamodeofbeing,orofrevealing.Thismeans
thattechnologicalthingshavetheirownnovelkindofpresence,endurance,andconnectionsamongpartsand
wholes.Theyhavetheirownwayofpresentingthemselvesandtheworldinwhichtheyoperate.Theessence
oftechnologyis,forHeidegger,notthebestormostcharacteristicinstanceoftechnology,norisitanebulous
generality,aformoridea.Rather,toconsidertechnologyessentiallyistoseeitasaneventtowhichwebelong:
thestructuring,ordering,andrequisitioningofeverythingaroundus,andofourselves.Thesecondpointis
thattechnologyevenholdsswayoverbeingsthatwedonotnormallythinkofastechnological,suchasgods
andhistory.Third,theessenceoftechnologyasHeideggerdiscussesitisprimarilyamatterofmodernand
industrialtechnology.Heislessconcernedwiththeancientandoldtoolsandtechniquesthatantedate
modernitytheessenceoftechnologyisrevealedinfactoriesandindustrialprocesses,notinhammersand
plows.Andfourth,forHeidegger,technologyisnotsimplythepracticalapplicationofnaturalscience.Instead,
modernnaturalsciencecanunderstandnatureinthecharacteristicallyscientificmanneronlybecausenature
hasalready,inadvance,cometolightasasetofcalculable,orderableforcesthatistosay,technologically.
SomeconcreteexamplesfromHeideggerswritingswillhelpusdevelopthesethemes.WhenHeideggersays
thattechnologyrevealsthingstousasstandingreserve,hemeansthateverythingisimposeduponor
challengedtobeanorderlyresourcefortechnicalapplication,whichinturnwetakeasaresourceforfurther
use,andsooninterminably.Forexample,wechallengelandtoyieldcoal,treatingthelandasnothingbuta
coalreserve.Thecoalisthenstored,oncall,readytodeliverthesunswarmththatisstoredinit,whichis
thenchallengedforthforheat,whichinturnisorderedtodeliversteamwhosepressureturnsthewheelsthat

keepafactoryrunning.Thefactoriesarethemselveschallengedtoproducetoolsthroughwhichonceagain
machinesaresettoworkandmaintained.
Thepassivevoiceinthisaccountindicatesthattheseactsoccurnotprimarilybyourowndoingwebelongto
theactivity.Technologicalconscriptionsofthingsoccurinasensepriortoouractualtechnicaluseofthem,
becausethingsmustbe(andbeseenas)alreadyavailableresourcesinorderforthemtobeusedinthis
fashion.ThisavailabilitymakesplanningfortechnicalendspossibleitistheheartofwhatintheSixtiesand
Seventieswascalledtheinescapablesystem.Butthesetechnicalendsareneverendsinthemselves:A
successisthattypeofconsequencethatitselfremainsassignedtotheyieldingoffurtherconsequences.This
chaindoesnotmovetowardanythingthathasitsownpresence,but,instead,onlyentersintoitscircuit,andis
regulatingandsecuringnaturalresourcesandenergiesinthisneverendingfashion.
Technologyalsoreplacesthefamiliarconnectionofpartstowholeseverythingisjustanexchangeablepiece.
Forexample,whileadeeroratreeorawinejugmaystandonitsownandhaveitsownpresence,an
automobiledoesnot:itischallengedforafurtherconductingalong,whichitselfsetsinplacethepromotionof
commerce.Machinesandotherpiecesofinventoryarenotpartsofselfstandingwholes,butarrivepieceby
piece.Thesepiecesdosharethemselveswithothersinasortofunity,buttheyareisolated,shattered,and
confinedtoacircuitoforderability.Theisolatedpieces,moreover,areuniformandexchangeable.Wecan
replaceonepieceofstandingreservewithanother.Bycontrast,Myhand...isnotapieceofme.Imyselfam
entirelyineachgestureofthehand,everysingletime.
Humanbeingstooarenowexchangeablepieces.Aforesteristodaypositionedbythelumberindustry.
Whetherheknowsitornot,heisinhisownwayapieceofinventoryinthecellulosestockdeliveredto
newspapersandmagazines.Theseinturn,asHeideggerputsitinTheQuestionConcerningTechnology,set
publicopiniontoswallowingwhatisprinted,sothatasetconfigurationofopinionbecomesavailableon
demand.Similarly,radioanditsemployeesbelongtothestandingreserveofthepublicsphereeverythingin
thepublicsphereisorderedforanyoneandeveryonewithoutdistinction.Eventheradiolistener,whomwe
arenowadaysaccustomedtothinkingofasafreeconsumerofmassmediaafterall,heisentirelyfreeto
turnthedeviceonandoffisactuallystillconfinedinthetechnologicalsystemofproducingpublicopinion.
Indeed,heisonlyfreeinthesensethateachtimehemustfreehimselffromthecoerciveinsistenceofthe
publicspherethatneverthelessineluctablypersists.
Buttheessenceoftechnologydoesnotjustaffectthingsandpeople.Itattackseverythingthatis:Natureand
history,humans,anddivinities.Whentheologiansonoccasioncitethebeautyofatomicphysicsorthe
subtletiesofquantummechanicsasevidencefortheexistenceofGod,theyhave,Heideggersays,placedGod
intotherealmoftheorderable.Godbecomestechnologized.(Heideggerswordfortheessenceoftechnology
isGestell.WhilethetranslatoroftheBremenlectures,AndrewMitchell,rendersitaspositionality,William
Lovitt,thetranslatorofTheQuestionConcerningTechnologyin1977chosethetermenframing.Italmost
goeswithoutsayingthatneithertermcanbringoutallthenuancesthatHeideggerhasinmind.)
TheheartofthematterforHeideggeristhusnotinanyparticularmachine,process,orresource,butratherin
thechallenging:thewaytheessenceoftechnologyoperatesonourunderstandingofallmattersandonthe
presenceofthosemattersthemselvestheallpervasivewayweconfront(andareconfrontedby)the
technologicalworld.Everythingencounteredtechnologicallyisexploitedforsometechnicaluse.Itisimportant

tonote,assuggestedearlier,thatwhenHeideggerspeaksoftechnologysessenceintermsofchallengingor
positionality,hespeaksofmoderntechnology,andexcludestraditionalartsandtoolsthatwemightinsome
senseconsidertechnological.Forinstance,thepeoplewhocrosstheRhinebywalkingoverasimplebridge
mightalsoseemtobeusingthebridgetochallengetheriver,makingitapieceinanendlesschainofuse.But
Heideggerarguesthatthebridgeinfactallowstherivertobeitself,tostandwithinitsownflowandform.By
contrast,ahydroelectricplantanditsdamsandstructurestransformtheriverintojustonemoreelementinan
energyproducingsequence.Similarly,thetraditionalactivitiesofpeasantsdonotchallengethefarmland.
Rather,theyprotectthecrops,leavingthemtothediscretionofthegrowingforces,whereasagricultureis
nowamechanizedfoodindustry.
Modernmachinesarethereforenotmerelymoredeveloped,orselfpropelled,versionsofoldtoolssuchas
waterorspinningwheels.Technologysessencehasalreadyfromtheoutsetabolishedallthoseplaceswhere
thespinningwheelandwatermillpreviouslystood.Heideggerisnotconcernedwiththeelusivequestionof
preciselydatingtheoriginofmoderntechnology,aquestionthatsomethinkimportantinordertounderstandit.
Buthedoesclaimthatwellbeforetheriseofindustrialmechanizationintheeighteenthcentury,technologys
essencewasalreadyinplace.Itfirstofalllituptheregionwithinwhichtheinventionofsomethinglikepower
producingmachinescouldatallbesoughtoutandattempted.Wecannotcapturetheessenceoftechnology
bydescribingthemakeupofamachine,foreveryconstructionofeverymachinealreadymoveswithinthe
essentialspaceoftechnology.
Eveniftheessenceoftechnologydoesnotoriginateintheriseofmechanization,canweatleastshowhowit
followsfromthewayweapprehendnature?Afterall,Heideggersays,theessenceoftechnologybeginsits
reignwhenmodernnaturalscienceisbornintheearlyseventeenthcentury.Butinfactwecannotshowthis
becauseinHeideggersviewtherelationshipbetweenscienceandtechnologyisthereverseofhowweusually
thinkittobenaturalforcesandmaterialsbelongtotechnology,ratherthantheotherwayaround.Itwas
technologicalthinkingthatfirstunderstoodnatureinsuchawaythatnaturecouldbechallengedtounlockits
forcesandenergy.Thechallengeprecededtheunlockingtheessenceoftechnologyisthuspriortonatural
science.Moderntechnologyisnotappliednaturalscience,farmoreismodernnaturalsciencetheapplication
oftheessenceoftechnology.Natureisthereforethefundamentalpieceofinventoryofthetechnological
standingreserveandnothingelse.
Giventhisviewoftechnology,itfollowsthatanyscientificaccountobscurestheessentialbeingofmanythings,
includingtheirnearness.SowhenHeideggerdiscussestechnologyandnearness,heassuresusthatheisnot
simplyrepeatingtheclichthattechnologymakestheworldsmaller.Whatisdecisive,hewrites,isnotthat
thedistancesarediminishingwiththehelpoftechnology,butratherthatnearnessremainsoutstanding.In
ordertoexperiencenearness,wemustencounterthingsintheirtruth.Andnomatterhowmuchwebelievethat
sciencewillletusencountertheactualinitsactuality,scienceonlyoffersusrepresentationsofthings.Itonly
everencountersthatwhichitsmannerofrepresentationhaspreviouslyadmittedasapossibleobjectforitself.
AnexamplefromthesecondlectureillustrateswhatHeideggermeans.Scientificallyspeaking,thedistance
betweenahouseandthetreeinfrontofitcanbemeasuredneutrally:itisthirtyfeet.Butinoureverydaylives,
thatdistanceisnotasneutral,notasabstract.Instead,thedistanceisanaspectofourconcernwiththetree
andthehouse:theexperienceofwalking,ofseeingthetreesshapegrowlargerasIcomecloser,andofthe

growingseparationfromthehomeasIwalkawayfromit.Inthescientificaccount,distanceappearstobefirst
achievedinanoppositionbetweenviewerandobject.Bybecomingindifferenttothingsastheyconcernus,by
representingboththedistanceandtheobjectassimplebutusefulmathematicalentitiesorphilosophicalideas,
weloseourtruestexperienceofnearnessanddistance.
TurningToandAwayfromDanger
Itisbecomingclearbynowthatinordertounderstandtheessenceoftechnologywemustalsounderstand
thingsnontechnologicallywemustentertherealmwherethingscanshowthemselvestoustruthfullyina
mannernotlimitedtothetechnological.Buttechnologyissuchadomineeringforcethatitallbuteliminatesour
abilitytoexperiencethisrealm.Thepossibilityofunderstandingtheinterrelated,meaningful,practical
involvementswithoursurroundingsthatHeideggerdescribesisalmostobliterated.Thedangeristhat
technologysdominationfullydarkensandmakesusforgetourunderstandingofourselvesasthebeingswho
canstandwithinthisrealm.
ThethirdBremenlecturelaysoutjusthowseveretheproblemis.Whilewehavealreadyseenhowtheessence
oftechnologypreventsusfromencounteringtherealityoftheworld,nowHeideggerpointsoutthattechnology
hasbecometheworld(worldandpositionalityarethesame).Technologyreigns,andwethereforeforget
beingaltogetherandourownessentialfreedomwenolongerevenrealizetheworldwehavelost.Waysof
experiencingdistanceandtimeotherthanthroughtheevermorepreciseneutralmeasuringwithrulersand
clocksbecomelosttoustheynolongerseemtobetypesofknowingatallbutareatmostvaguepoetic
representations.Whilemanyothercriticsoftechnologypointtoobviousdangersassociatedwithit,Heidegger
emphasizesadifferentkindofthreat:thepossibilitythatitmaypreventusfromexperiencingthecallofamore
primaltruth.Theproblemisnotjustthattechnologymakesitharderforustoaccessthatrealm,butthatit
makesusaltogetherforgetthattherealmexists.
Yet,Heideggerargues,recognizingthisdangerallowsustoglimpseandthenrespondtowhatisforgotten.The
understandingofmansessenceasopennesstothisrealmandoftechnologyasonlyonewayinwhichthings
canrevealthemselvesistheguideforkeepingtechnologywithinitsproperbounds.Earlyinthefourthandlast
Bremenlecture,Heideggerasksifthedangeroftechnologymeansthatthehumanispowerlessagainst
technologyanddeliveredovertoitforbetterorworse.No,hesays.Thequestion,however,isnothowone
shouldactwithregardtotechnologythequestionthatseemstobealwaysclosestandsolelyurgentbut
howweshouldthink,fortechnologycanneverbeovercome,weareneveritsmaster.Properthinkingand
speaking,ontheotherhand,allowustobeourselvesandtorevealbeing.Languageis...nevermerelythe
expressionofthinking,feeling,andwilling.Languageistheinceptualdimensionwithinwhichthehuman
essenceisfirstcapableofcorrespondingtobeing.Itisthroughlanguage,byawayofthinking,thatwefirst
learntodwellintherealmofbeing.
Thethoughtthatopensupthepossibilityofaturnawayfromtechnologyandtowarditsessentialrealmisthe
realizationofitsdanger.HeideggerquotestheGermanpoetFriedrichHlderlin:Butwherethedangeris,there
growsalsowhatsaves.Byilluminatingthisdanger,Heideggerspathofthinkingisaguideforturningaway
fromit.Theturnbringsustoaplaceinwhichthetruthofbeingbecomesvisibleasifbyaflashoflightning.This
flashdoesnotjustilluminatethetruthofbeing,italsoilluminatesus:wearecaughtsightofintheinsight.As

ourownessencecomestolight,ifwedisavowhumanstubbornnessandcastourselvesbeforethisinsight,
sotoodoestheessenceoftechnologycometolight.
TheWayofNatureandPoetry
AcloserlookatTheQuestionConcerningTechnologyandsomeofthewaysitaddstotheBremenlectures
willhelpusfurthertoclarifyHeideggersview.IntheBremenlectures,Heideggerfocusesonthecontrast
betweenentitiesseenaspiecesinanendlesstechnologicalchainontheonehand,andthingsthatreveal
beingbybringingtolighttherichinterplaybetweengodsandhumans,earthandskyontheother.Hisexample
ofsuchathinginthefirstlectureisawinejugusedforsacrificiallibation:Thefulljuggathersinitselfthe
earthsnutrients,rain,sunshine,humanfestivities,andthegifttothegods.Allofthesetogetherhelpus
understandwhatthewinejugis.InTheQuestionConcerningTechnology,itisproductsunderstoodina
certainwaythatHeideggercontrastswithtechnologysrevealing.DrawingonAristotlesaccountofformal,final,
material,andefficientcauses,Heideggerarguesthatbothnature(physis)andart(poiesis)arewaysof
bringingforthofunconcealingthatwhichisconcealed.Whatisnaturalisselfproducing,selfarising,self
illuminating,notwhatcanbecalculatedinordertobecomeaformlessresource.Poetryalsobringsthingsto
presence.HeideggerexplainsthattheGreekwordtechne,fromwhichtechnologyderives,atonetimealso
meantthebringingforthofthetrueintothebeautifulandthepoiesisofthefinearts.
IncontrasttoHeideggersnotionofathingorofrevealingstandsthekindofobjectivityforwhichournatural
sciencesstrive.ButinspiteofwhatHeideggerhimselfborrowsfromGreekthought,heemphasizesthatthereis
alinkbetweenmoderntechnologyandclassicphilosophybecauseofPlatosunderstandingofbeingas
permanentpresence.ForPlato,theideaofathingwhatitisisitsenduringlook,whichisnotandnever
willbeperceivablewithphysicaleyesandcannotbeexperiencedwiththeothersenseseither.Thisattentionto
whatispurelypresentincontemplation,Heideggerargues,ultimatelyleadsustoforgetthebeingofthings,
whatisbroughtforth,andtheworldofhumanconcern.
Heideggersbriefsketchesintheselecturessuggestpowerfulalternativestotechnologicalunderstandingthat
helpustorecognizeitslimits.InTheQuestionConcerningTechnology,Heideggershopeistoprepareafree
relationshipto[technology].Therelationshipwillbefreeifitopensourhumanexistencetotheessenceof
technology.Itisnotthecasethattechnologyisthefateofourage,wherefatemeanstheinevitablenessof
anunalterablecourse.Experiencingtechnologyasakindbutonlyonekindofrevealing,andseeing
mansessentialplaceasonethatisopentodifferentkindsofrevealingfreesusfromthestultifiedcompulsion
topushonblindlywithtechnologyor,whatcomestothesame,torebelhelplesslyagainstitandcurseitasthe
workofthedevil.Indeed,Heideggersaysattheendofthelecture,ourexaminingorquestioningofthe
essenceoftechnologyandotherkindsofrevealingisthepietyofthought.Bythisquestioningwemaybe
savedfromtechnologysrule.
MeaningandMortality
Heideggersdiscussionsofferseveralusefuldirectionsfordealingwithtechnology,evenifonedisagreeswith
elementsofhisanalysis.Considerhisviewofdistance,wherehedifferentiatesneutralmeasureddistanceand
geometricalshapefromthespacesanddistanceswithwhichweconcernourselvesdaybyday.Someone
thousandsofmilesawaycanbeimmediatelypresenttoonesfeelingsandthoughts.Twotablesmayhave
identicalsize,yeteachmaybetoobigorsmallforcomfortable,practical,orbeautifuluse.Heideggers

understandingoftheimportanceofspacechangessomewhatinhisworks,butwhatmattersforusishis
insistencethatourunderstandingofthespacesinwhichweliveisneitherinferiornorreducibletoaneutral,
technical,scientificunderstandingofspace.Thisisalsotrueoftime,direction,andsimilarmatters.Perhaps
mostprofoundly,Heideggerattemptstomakevisibleanunderstandingofwhatispresent,enduring,and
essentialthatdiffersfromanotionoftheeternalbasedontimeunderstoodnarrowlyandneutrally.Heideggers
alternativesprovidewaystoclarifytheirreducibilityofourexperiencetowhatwecancapturetechnologically,or
throughnaturalscience.OneexampleofthisirreducibilityisAristotlesvirtue,whichactsinlightoftherighttime,
therightplace,andtherightamount,notintermsofmeasuresthatareabstractedfromexperience.Ordinary
humanwaysofunderstandingarenotmerefolkopinionthatissubservienttoscience,assomemightsaythey
offeranaccountofhowthingsarethatcanbetrueinitsownway.
AseconddirectionthatHeideggergivesusforproperlysituatingtechnologyishisnovelunderstandingof
humanbeing.ForHeidegger,thetraitsthatmakeushumanareconnectedtoouropennesstobeingandto
whatcanberevealed,toourstandinginaclearingwherethingscanapproachusmeaningfully.Onefeatureof
thisunderstandingisthatHeideggerpaysattentiontotheplaceofmoodsaswellasofreasoninallowingthings
tobeintelligible.Anotherfeatureishisconcernfortheunityinmeaninginwhatisandisnot,inpresenceand
absence.Forinstance,anabsentfriendimpressesonusthepossibilityoffriendshipasmuchasonewho
standsbeforeus.
CentraltoHeideggersunderstandingofhumanbeingistheimportanceofdeathanddyinginour
understandingofourindependenceandwholeness.Theimportanceofdyinggovernshischoiceofoneofthe
examplesheusesinthesecondBremenlecturetoclarifythedifferencebetweentechnologyandordinary
concern:
Thecarpenterproducesatable,butalsoacoffin....[He]doesnotcompleteaboxforacorpse.Thecoffinis
fromtheoutsetplacedinaprivilegedspotofthefarmhousewherethedeadpeasantstilllingers.There,a
coffinisstillcalledadeathtree.Thedeathofthedeceasedflourishesinit.Thisflourishingdeterminesthe
houseandfarmstead,theoneswhodwellthere,theirkin,andtheneighborhood.Everythingisotherwisein
themotorizedburialindustryofthebigcity.Herenodeathtreesareproduced.
ThesignificanceofmortalityfitstogetherwithHeideggersthoughtaboutreverenceandgods.Gratitude,
thankfulness,andrestraintareproperresponsestoknowingourselvesasbeingswhoaremortal.Heidegger
doesnothaveinminddignityinaconventionalmoralorChristiansense.Rather,hehasinviewtheinviolability
ofbeinghumanandofthingsastheycanberevealed.Reestablishingtheexperienceofreverenceiscentralfor
limitingthecontroloftechnologicalthinking.
TheNecessityofMakingDistinctions
Heideggersargumentsabouttechnologyalsoraiseseveraldifficulties.Mostpressingly,heobscuresthe
groundsforrankingwhatwemaychoose,andthusforchoiceitself.Howexactlyarethedeathcampsdifferent
from,andmorehorriblethan,mechanizedagriculture,iftheyareinessencethesame?Howcanwe
understandtechnologytobepowerfulbutnotsorigidlyencompassingastoeclipsepossibilitiesforethical
action?

Heideggersanalysisoftechnologyhassomethingincommonwithwhattheearlymodernthinkersfrom
MachiavellithroughLockeandbeyondwhofirstestablishedthelinkbetweenmodernscienceandpractical
life,consideredtoberadicalintheirendeavors:theimportanceoftruthmerelyaseffectiveness,ofnatureas
conquerable,ofenergyandforceastoolsforcontrol.IncontrasttoHeidegger,however,forthesethinkerssuch
viewsaretiedtoalargerargumentabouthappinessandwhatisgood.Now,theseearlymodernviewsof
scienceandpracticallifeandalternativeviews,suchasthoseexpressedinclassicalthoughtseemtobe
thetruegroundsforunderstandingthedominanceoftechnology,andalsoforourabilitytolimitthisdominance.
ThequestionwemustaskiswhatHeideggeraddstothediscussionofthesethinkers,iftheyaccountforthe
realmofopenness,revealing,andsignificancethatHeideggerappearstohavediscovered,whileaffording
groundsformoralrankingandprudentialjudgmentabsentinHeidegger.
Indeed,onemightask(despiteHeideggersobjectiontothequestion)whencetechnologyarisesinitsessence.
IsthewaythatbeingspresentthemselvestousmeaningfulonlyinHeideggerssense,orcananaccountbe
givenforthismeaningthatatthesametimeallowsandevendemandsmoralchoiceandopennesstobeing
beyondwhatHeideggerallows?Becausemattersappeartoustechnologicallyinawaythatseemstiedto
choiceswemakebasedonparticularviewsofhappiness,ofthegood,andofthesacred(allofwhichareat
leasttosomeextentsubjecttorationaldiscussion),isntittruethateverythingtechnologicalcanbejudged,
disputed,evaluated,andranked?Isourunderstandingofhappiness,ofthegood,andofthesacredtruly
subservienttoapriorunderstandingofentitiesastechnological,orisitinsteadinterspersedandcoevalwithit,
orevenpriortoit?
WeseeinHeideggersotherworksinstanceswhereheamalgamatesradicaldifferences,similartoifless
grotesquethancomparingdeathcampsandmechanizedagriculture,suchashisclaimthatAmericaand
communistRussiaaremetaphysicallythesame,bothequallydominatedbytechnologyandtherootless
organizationoftheaverageman.ThisclaimagainindicateshowHeideggersviewofmetaphysicalidentitycan
distortsignificantdifferences,andhowtoattendtoandchooseamongthem.Thingsthatpresentthemselves
technologicallyinHeideggerssenseseemsocontrolledbyapervasiveunifiedhorizonthatthepossibilityofour
graspingandrankingthesedifferenceswhetherfromwithinatechnologicalunderstandingorfromoutside
remainsobscure.Inresponse,wemightsuggestthatthedistortionandtheoverreachingthatmakeelementsof
technologyquestionableareinfactvisiblewithintechnologicalactivityitselfbecauseofthelargerpoliticaland
orderedworldtowhichitbelongs.Thisisnotacausallyreductiverelation,butadescriptiveandorganizingone.
Toexperiencetechnologyisalsotoexperienceitslimits.Werecognizethegulfbetweendeathcampsand
mechanizedagriculture,andthedifferenceinkindbetweenSoviettyrannyandAmericanfreedom,despite
seemingsimilaritieswithrespecttotheplaceoftechnology,becausethesebelongtolargerwholesaboutwhich
wecanjudge.Perhapsthekeytounderstandingtechnologyandtoguidingitis,despiteHeideggers
animadversions,preciselytowonderabouttheordinaryquestionofhowtousetechnologywell,notpieceby
piecetoserveisolateddesires,butaspartofawholewayoflife.
MarkBlitzistheFletcherJonesProfessorofPoliticalPhilosophyatClaremontMcKennaCollege.
MarkBlitz,"UnderstandingHeideggeronTechnology,"TheNewAtlantis,Number41,Winter2014,pp.6380.

HOME

SUBSCRIBE

CONTACT

BOOKS

CURRENTISSUE

BUYBACKISSUES

SUBMISSIONS

BLOGS

ABOUT

ADVERTISE

DONATE

PRIVACYPOLICY

PERMISSIONS

WEBMASTER