However, whereas Suber is a professional academic, I am not. Before reading any further, read my disclaimer and warning on my My Writings page.
A Question of The Question Concerning Technology
Glenn Mason-Riseborough (5/10/1998)
1.0 Introduction
The issue of concern in this essay is technology. Specifically, the concern is regarding the dangers of modern technology as Heidegger[1] saw it. It would be a simple matter to discuss these dangers of modern technology if all that was at issue was dangerous machinery. I could mention many instances where factory workers have been physically injured by substandard machinery or work related accidents. These types of incidences are often reported in the popular media. Technology in this sense is indeed dangerous. Technology as machinery in the modern age is dangerous, and many times more so than in any other past age. Mechanical (or electrical, or nuclear) technology today is extremely complex and if and when it goes wrong, it can have a catastrophic impact on the lives of many people. However, Heidegger is not talking about the dangers of modern mechanical technology. Nor is he discussing technology in the sense of information technology. This type of technology may also have its dangers. Reliance may be placed on information technology to such an extent that a loss of any information may be economically devastating. This has most recently been shown by the millennium problem[2]. Technology for Heidegger is not just about physical technological objects. Heidegger writes about the essence (Wesen) of technology as opposed to an instrumental definition of technology. It is my task in this essay to elucidate what Heidegger meant by technology. In discussing technology, I will follow Heidegger’s lead and compare and contrast modern technology with ancient technology. I will discuss whether I think that there is any essential difference between these two types of technology and Heidegger’s arguments for asserting that there is. I will then examine why Heidegger thought that modern technology, as opposed to ancient technology, is dangerous and whether I think he is correct to make such a claim.
Firstly, I will start out by discussing more formally what Heidegger sees as a misleading approach to the question concerning technology. As alluded to above, Heidegger states that “the essence of technology is by no means anything technological” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 4). Heidegger thinks that it is a mistake to make the instrumental definition of technology the centre of the question at hand. He discusses somewhat in depth the four causes that make up the instrumental definition of technology. These four causes are:
1. The causa materialis – the physical material of the object.
2. The causa formalis – the shape of the object.
3. The causa finalis – the end requirement for the object.
4. The causa efficiens – that which brings the object into existence.
As an example, Heidegger uses a silver chalice to explain the difference between the four causes. The causa materialis is the silver; the causa formalis is the particular shape of the chalice (its ‘chaliceness’ rather than its ‘broochness’ or ‘ringness’ for example), the causa finalis is the chalice’s intended use in a religious sacrificial rite, and the causa efficiens is the silversmith who gathers the three other components together. The instrumental definition of technology is misleading because it sees technology as merely a means to an end. As such, this definition could just as easily fit instances of ancient technology or modern technology, and as we shall see, Heidegger wishes to argue that there is an important distinction to be made between these. Although the instrumental definition of technology is correct, it does not uncover the essence of technology. Heidegger states that “the merely correct is not yet the true” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 6). The essence of technology is more fundamental than the instrumental definition of technology allows us to see. Heidegger also thinks that if we see technology in terms of an instrumental definition, we will attempt to find the solution with instances of technology. Hence, any solution will only be a symptomatic solution. It may be analogous to having an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff, rather than a sign at the top. We need to make people aware that there is a cliff in the first place, that cliffs may be dangerous, and that there may be many other ways of getting to the bottom, or that it may not even be necessary to get to the bottom. However, this is all jumping the gun. Our next task is to find an alternative way to perceive technology and to differentiate between modern and ancient technology.
If Heidegger sees the instrumental conception of technology as misleading when examining the question concerning technology, what approach does he recommend? As stated above, he wants to emphasise the essence of technology. He analogises the essence of technology with the essence of “tree.” He thinks that “That which pervades every tree, as tree, is not itself a tree that can be encountered among all the other trees” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 4). The essence of technology is similar; it is not something that can be directly encountered as an instance of technology. This makes explicitly defining technology extremely difficult, and we must go about it with subtlety. Heidegger attempts this by contrasting modern technology with ancient technology. By ancient technology, Heidegger is generally referring to Greek (especially pre-Socratic) technology, although he also sometimes includes medieval technology as a part of ancient technology as well. Modern technology is industrial and post-industrial technology[3]. The difference between these two terms (ancient and modern) arrises in how the world is perceived.
The ancient view of technology is one of man[4] adapting to nature. According to Heidegger, the ancients lived with an acceptance of the power of nature. Their aim was not to go against nature or manipulate it for their own benefit. Heidegger (1977) makes specific reference to the term technē. He states that technē “reveals whatever does not bring itself forth and does not yet lie here before us” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 13). So, the ancient view of technology is one of revealing. Through the four causes, it reveals aspects of what is hidden. There is an acceptance that what is revealed is not the whole picture. If any of the four causes had been different, the end result would have been different. The chalice may not have been a silver chalice with a religious purpose. It may have been any number of things – a brooch, a ring, or a table. In this sense, its particular disclosure may be seen as arbitrary. We may analogise ancient technology with our enlightened perception of the moon. When we look up at the moon we see a lighted disc. However, when we understand the moon for what it is (a spheroid), we know that there is a far greater undisclosed darkness behind the lighted disc. What is revealed to us is only two dimensions of a three-dimensional object. From this perspective, technology reveals to us only a very small section of an infinitely greater whole. According to Heidegger, this is the essence of ancient technology. It is a bringing-forth into the light, with an acceptance that there is still much that is hidden. It allows something to come into being rather than pushing it or manipulating it.
The modern view of technology is one of nature adapting to man. Heidegger thinks that the modern world attempts to use technology to control nature. Nature is seen merely as something to be used as man sees fit – it is a resource. Modern man does not see the world as a revealing, but rather as all that there is. There is nothing undisclosed, or that cannot be disclosed to him through technology whenever he desires it. If we go back to the moon analogy, modern man sees the lighted disc and thinks that there is nothing else behind it. Modern technology is an aggressiveness toward nature. It is the individual who makes things happen rather than letting them happen. Heidegger uses the term Ge-stell in this respect. It can be translated as Enframing, but it must be realised that it is intended more as an active demanding or summoning into revealing.
In distinguishing between ancient and modern technology, Heidegger tries to make the distinction concrete with a number of examples. In one instance he attempts to contrast ancient and modern ways of using nature as an energy source. For ancient technology he brings to mind an old windmill. He states that even though an old windmill uses nature as an energy source “its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind’s blowing” (Heidegger, 1977, p.14). In contrast, modern technology challenges the earth. “A tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 14). “The hydroelectric plant is set into the current of the Rhine. … the Rhine itself appears as something at our command” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 16). In another instance, Heidegger distinguishes between ancient and modern forms of farming. “The work of the peasant does not challenge the soil of the field. In the sowing of the grain it places the seed in the keeping of the forces of growth and watches over its increase. … [modern farming] sets upon it [nature] in the sense of challenging it. Agriculture is now the mechanised food industry” (Heidegger, 1977, p. 15).
In my opinion, these examples above are artificial distinctions. While it is unfair to simply write off Heidegger’s arguments as looking at the past through rose coloured glasses, I think we need to strongly question his examples. This is because the distinction between ancient and modern perceptions of technology may be questioned as a historical accuracy. At this point I think that it is useful to distinguish between historical ancient and modern technology, and theoretical ancient and modern technology. In this light, historical ancient technology may be seen in terms of theoretical modern technology, and historical modern technology may be seen in terms of theoretical ancient technology. The truth of the former assertion may be evidenced by the fact that even though the ancients did not have access to modern technology, their efforts were still their best attempt at control over nature. They were builders and farmers and consumers just as much as we are today. Their tools were cruder, but their efforts at control were the same. They fought wars and destroyed land if they thought it was to their advantage. Just because they did not have weapons of mass destruction does not mean that they did not desire them and would not have used them if they could. On the other side of the coin, historical modern technology can be seen in terms of theoretical ancient technology by way of modern theories such as quantum mechanics for example. I will elaborate on this in the next section. Hence, I think that Heidegger’s attempt to find examples of modern and ancient technology is not looking at the essence of technology, but falls into the trap of instrumentality that he was trying to avoid.
I will allow myself a brief digression in this section to explain some aspects of quantum mechanics. I believe the connection here is twofold. Firstly, Heidegger was personally acquainted with Heisenberg (infamously of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and specifically mentions his ideas in The Question Concerning Technology[5]. Secondly, quantum mechanics is itself concerned with how reality as we see it is actualised from a multitude of possibility. We may consider that the quantum realm is the dark aspect of the moon and classical physics (our “normal” existence) is the lighted disc. In 1925 Erwin Schrödinger (1887 – 1961) and Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976) both independently developed theories that established a new branch of physics known as quantum mechanics (Cutnell & Johnson, 1992). In order to avoid unnecessary physical formulae and theories, and to jump straight to the heart of the philosophical issues I will describe a paradox known as the Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox, and then explain its connection.
The Schrödinger’s Cat Paradox is a thought experiment that is used to challenge our intuitions about how we perceive the world. In this thought experiment, a cat is placed in a closed box with no windows or any way for observers to see inside. The box also contains a single radioactive particle with a half-life of one hour, a Geiger counter, and a container of poison. This is set up in such a way that if the radioactive particle decays, the Geiger counter picks this up and the poison is immediately released, killing the cat. Thus, after one hour there is a 50% chance that the cat is dead.
In normal terms we would say that after one hour the cat is either alive or dead and if we were to open the box we would discover by observation which was the case. In quantum terms things are a little more difficult, and needless to say this makes it extremely interesting philosophically. Simply put, we are forced to admit that the cat is both alive and dead, and the cat is neither wholly alive nor wholly dead. How did this happen? In the jargon we say that the cat is described in terms of a wave function. There is a superposition of the two states of cathood: living and dead. When we open the box to discover which is the case, we collapse the superposition of the wave function into one. The issue here is not “how can something be two things at once?” but “how can something be two things at once at the macroscopic level, and what level of observer effect is needed to collapse the wave function?” Quantum mechanics tells us without a doubt that subatomic particles live in the quantum world of uncertainty. There is a vast range of possibilities open to such particles and they can and do exist in many different places at once. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle addresses the issue of how much uncertainty there is about a particle’s position and momentum when we attempt to observe it. If this is the case at the quantum level, then how is it that we seem to see a world in which objects are physically in one place at one time, and we can live out a normal life with this assumption? An extremely controversial answer is that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function. Many physicists are not happy with this answer because consciousness is such an amorphous idea that it is hard to understand physically what is going on. Also there is an issue of what has consciousness. Is it only humans, all life (including amoeba), somewhere in between, or even everything (panpsychism)[6].
To return to the issue of technology, we may see that Heidegger’s essay (The Question Concerning Technology) is a discussion on quantum physics for a layperson. We see that the quantum realm is that which is undisclosed to us, and the classical realm is that which technology reveals to us. As such, it is a mistake to think that quantum physics merely attempts to explain the lighted side of the moon. It is a deeper analysis of probabilities and uncertainties that does not tell us what is, but rather what might be. Our consciousness/technology brings in to being that which was previously undisclosed to us.
Having taken the small diversion in the previous section, we are now in a position to examine what, for Heidegger, is dangerous about modern technology. Simply put, it is a forgetting. Ge-stell conceals the way of revealing. It forces us into a mode of thought and belief of being in control of nature. We forget that what is revealed to us is only one aspect of truth, and we live our lives as if the whole truth is revealed to us through our own controlling actions. “What is dangerous is not technology. … The essence of technology as a destining of revealing, is the danger. … 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 the more primal truth” (Heidegger, 1977, p.28). Thus, the danger is that of limitation. Through technology, man limits and oppresses himself into a set mode of conduct and thought and forgets that there are other possibilities open if he only looked. Man forgets that the world that reveals itself to him is a small part of a far greater undisclosed whole. Other parts can be accessed when man remembers this and frees himself.
Looking at this in isolation, we see Heidegger as extremely mystical. In my view he does not sufficiently explain why we should believe that there is a dark side to the moon. Hence, we cannot know that modern technology is dangerous. Many people can and do live out their lives only seeing the lighted disc; who is to say that they are wrong? This is why I think it is important to explicitly bring quantum mechanics into the discussion. These theories reveal to us the existence of the dark side of the moon. As stated above, they do not illuminate the dark side, but only show us what may be there. The equations and wave functions show us possibilities, and then somehow one of these possibilities becomes a reality (it is revealed to us). Quantum mechanics gives us strong evidence for believing Heidegger when he says that modern technology is dangerous. It shows us that reality is only a small aspect of an infinitely larger universe of ideas and possibilities. Theoretical modern technology is dangerous because we no longer believe in possibility and perspective (that which is concealed), but are only interested in absolutes (that which is revealed).
Heidegger’s view of the dangers of modern technology is a simple one. It is a single thought about how the world is, and as such is easily grasped. However it is extremely difficult to explain in words. In this essay I have attempted, in simple language, to explain this single thought. In doing so I have explained Heidegger’s definition of technology, and why he thinks it necessary to look at the essence rather than an instrumental definition of technology. I have distinguished between ancient and modern technology and also between historical and theoretical models of these two types of technology. I introduced a brief discussion on quantum mechanics to show how Heidegger’s ideas can be seen from a modern framework of theoretical physics. Finally, I explained why Heidegger thinks that modern technology is dangerous and why I agreed with him with the aid of quantum mechanics. Simply put, Enframing is the danger of modern technology.
Cutnell, J. D., & Johnson, K. W. (1992). Physics 2nd edn. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. (W. Lovitt trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
[1] This essay will use Heidegger’s essay The Question Concerning Technology (in Heidegger, 1977) as a basis for his views on this topic. To a lesser extent I will also indirectly use his essay The Turning (in Heidegger, 1977).
[2] The millennium problem arrises because many older computer systems were programmed at a time when disk space was limited and as a result only included two digits for the year (eg 98 for 1998). Thus, when the year switches from 1999 to 2000 these systems will have problems processing the data. It has cost companies and governments a significant amount of money to upgrade their systems, but there is still a danger that some systems will not be ready by the year 2000.
[3] By post-industrial, I mean information technology as opposed to mechanical, electrical or nuclear technology.
[4] And woman!
[5] I am assuming here that this is the same Heisenberg. Even if this is not the case, it is very likely that Heidegger was aware of Werner Heisenberg’s work as it was an important breakthrough at the time and received (and still receives) a lot of debate both scientifically and philosophically.
[6] The famous Zen koan of “if a tree falls in an empty forest is there a sound?” can be seen to address this issue also.