In the article, Questions concerning technology by Martin Heidegger, The author questions the essence of technology,

modern technology is considered a “means to an end” and a “human activity”, but Heidegger strongly opposes to that
view, though he calls the “instrumental” and “anthropological” definitions as correct but to him it doesn’t go deep
enough, to Heidegger, the essence of technology is not anything technological.

Heidegger’s argument about technology focuses on the motivations and reasons why humans build technology. This is a
unique perspective, because most people just assume that technology is something built for efficiency and practical use.
The author is concerned that society is seeing technology as something neutral and misunderstanding its “essence”

The only weakness I found in the article is Heidegger’s writing style, it is very difficult to understand, his views are very
abstract and relies on very unusual language. I had a very difficult time understanding the aspect of his argument and I
misinterpreted some of his points, but despite of his writing style, the article does show real problems in the modern
world by asking us to question technology’s motivation and “essence,” the author is raising a very important issue. He is
showing the need to revisit why people make technology, what it is used for, and whether it is really fulfilling the
interests of humankind and the Earth in general., I agree particularly about his discussion of art as technology, he is
concerned that “in our sheer aesthetic-mindedness we no longer guard and preserve the coming to presence of art”, the
author points that society is less interested in the essence of human making art as a process of revealing and discovery.
It shows concern as art plays a decreasingly respected and devalued role in our society.

To Heidegger, the essence of technology is revealed through the concept or idea of the bringing-forth, unconcealing,
and revealing of technology, unlike before where man simply brings forth, now man challenges forth, in other words we
use and manipulate the resources nature gives to us to manufacture, to create, or to reveal technology that is “man-
made”

An example to this is heidegger’s view of an old windmill, even though windmill is man-made, the idea of challenging
does not apply, because the wind is left as is, contrast to this is man challenges resource when he mines coal, or
cultivates his farms soil.

To Heidegger, windmill is an example of technology that satisfies humans, without hurting nature and Heidegger
imposes that we need more of these technologies since man perception of resource is now different, man perceive
resource not for what they actually are, but instead sees them as a way to fulfill man’s needs.
The only weakness I found in the article is Heidegger’s writing style, it is very difficult to understand, his views are very
abstract and relies on very unusual language. I had a very difficult time understanding the aspect of his argument and I
misinterpreted some of his points, but despite of his writing style, the article does show real problems in the modern
world. The author finds it concerning that we find technology as a practical and exploitative “essence” and abandoned
different concepts of technology as an art or philosophy. He also notes that technology is not necessarily needed to be
rooted in challenging-forth, and that it was once inclusive of “bringing-forth” processes that reveal beauty and truth. The
author is warning the reader against taking technology for granted as a natural part of human progress, and forgetting
that it is rooted in human choices and influence. I agree particularly about his discussion of art as technology, the author
is concerned that “in our sheer aesthetic-mindedness we no longer guard and preserve the coming to presence of
art”, the author points that society is less interested in the essence of human making art as a process of revealing and
discovery. It shows concern as art plays a decreasingly respected and devalued role in our society.

The author is concerned that “the essence of modern technology starts man upon the way of that revealing through
which the real everywhere, more or less distinctly, becomes standing-reserve”. By this, he means that the human
“essence” behind technology is a drive to put things into order and use them for practical results. It is different from the
human “essence” behind more traditional arts and trades, which are driven more by a desire to work with nature and
reveal certain truths about the world. Heidegger finds it concerning that we find technology as a practical and
exploitative “essence” and abandoned alternative concepts of technology as art or philosophy. He notes that technology
does not have to be rooted in challenging-forth, and that it was once inclusive of “bringing-forth” processes that reveal
beauty and truth. Heidegger is therefore cautioning the reader against taking technology for granted as a natural part of
human progress, and forgetting that it is rooted in human choices and influence.

The author is worried that the essence of present day innovation begins man upon the way for that noteworthy through
which the genuine all over, pretty much particularly, winds up standing-hold". By this, he implies that the human
"embodiment" behind innovation is a drive to place things into request and use them for viable outcomes. It is not the
same as the human "embodiment" behind increasingly customary expressions and exchanges, which are driven more by
a longing to work with nature and uncover certain facts about the world. Heidegger thinks that its perilous that we have
turned out to be so centered around innovation with a handy and exploitative "substance" and surrendered elective
ideas of innovation as craftsmanship or theory. He noticed that innovation does not need to be established in testing
forward, and that it was once comprehensive of "delivering" forms that uncover magnificence and truth. Heidegger is
along these lines advised the peruse against underestimating innovation as a characteristic piece of human
advancement, and overlooking that it is established in human decisions and impact.