In regard to the first definition, Heidegger believes that technology is used as an instrument for humans. He says, “Technology itself is a contrivance, or, in Latin, an instrumentum” (2). He claims that technology is just machinery that is a resource to humans. When something is made using a type of technology, tools, or equipment, the item that is made or the social need that is served belongs to the technology that created it. A modern example of this is Microsoft Word. Microsoft Word is software that I am currently using to type the draft of this blog post. I am using this technology as a means to the end result of creating a short essay. In this case, technology is a means for an end. However, this definition can be dangerous for humanity. This definition restricts human understanding of technology. Seeing technology as simply a means for an end could lead man to use technology as a resource to fuel his domination over nature. This would eventually lead to mans domination of man. Heidegger does not want his audience to see technology as a way to making, but as a method of revealing. He thinks that technology should be used to “reveal” the truth. For example, a piece of clay has the potential to become a pot. Through molding, the sculptor “reveals” the pot from the clay just as a tree reveals itself from a seed.
The second definition revolves around the idea of technology as a human activity. When we use technology, we belong to that technology. Facebook for example is a modern technology that was not around during Heidegger’s time. His second definition claims that when a person is using Facebook that person belongs to the activity of using Facebook similar to the way that the essay I am writing belongs to Microsoft Word because it is helping me create it. The second definition is very true today because when people are absorbed in social media and other media outlets, it is difficult for them to stop. This creates a society where we belong to social media.
No comments:
Post a Comment