WEEK 5 manufactured and used things themselves, and

The Human Person flourishing in terms of science the needs and ends that they serve, all belong to
and technology (Part I) what technology is. The whole complex of these
contrivances is technology. Technology itself is a
Martin Heidegger contrivance, or, in Latin, an instrumentum.

Heidegger was one of the most influential The current conception of technology, according
philosophers of the 20th century. Technology was to which it is a means and a human activity, can
an important element in his work: for Heidegger, therefore be called the instrumental and
technology was the key to understanding our anthropological definition of technology. Who
current time . Especially his text ‘The Question would ever deny that it is correct? It is in obvious
Concerning Technology’ (1954, English Translation conformity with what we are envisioning when we
1977), which has been very influential in talk about technology. The instrumental definition
philosophy of technology. of technology is indeed so uncannily correct that
it even holds for modern technology, of which, in
Three claims other respects, we maintain with some
justification that it is, in contrast to the older
As we just heard, Heidegger’s analysis of handwork technology, something completely
technology in The Question Concerning different and therefore new. Even the power
Technology consists of three main ‘claims’: plant with its turbines and generators is a man-
made means to an end established by man. Even
(1) technology is “not an instrument”, it is a way the jet aircraft and the high-frequency apparatus
of understanding the world; (2) technology is “not are means to ends. A radar station is of course
a human activity”, but develops beyond human less simple than a weather vane. To be sure, the
control, and (3) technology is “the highest construction of a high-frequency apparatus
danger”, risking us to only see the world through requires the interlocking of various processes of
technological thinking. technical-industrial production. And certainly, a
sawmill in a secluded valley of the Black Forest is a
Heidegger is a notoriously difficult philosopher to primitive means compared with the hydroelectric
read. We think, however, that it will still be plant in the Rhine River.
valuable to present you with a piece of his original
writing. But this much remains correct: modern
technology too is a means to an end. That is why
The following fragment presents Heidegger’s the instrumental conception of technology
analysis of what technology is, and how it is conditions every attempt to bring man into the
positioned in our world: right relation to technology. Everything depends
on our manipulating technology in the proper
“Technology is not equivalent to the essence of manner as a means. We will, as we say, “get”
technology. When we are seeking the essence of technology “spiritually in hand.” We will master it.
“tree,” we have to become aware that that The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent
which pervades every tree, as tree, is not itself a the more technology threatens to slip from
tree that can be encountered among all the human control.
other trees. “
But suppose now that technology were no mere
Likewise, the essence of technology is by no means, how would it stand with the will to master
means anything technological. Thus, we shall it? Yet we said, did we not, that the instrumental
never experience our relationship to the essence definition of technology is correct? To be sure.
of technology so long as we merely conceive and The correct always fixes upon something
push forward the technological, put up with it, or pertinent in whatever is under consideration.
evade it. Everywhere we remain unfree and However, in order to be correct, this fixing by no
chained to technology, whether we passionately means needs to uncover the thing in question in
affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in its essence. Only at the point where such an
the worst possible way when we regard it as uncovering happens does the true come to pass.
something neutral; for this conception of it, to For that reason, the merely correct is not yet the
which today we particularly like to do homage, true. Only the true brings us into a free
makes us utterly blind to the essence of relationship with that which concerns us from out
technology. of its essence. Accordingly, the correct
instrumental definition of technology still does
According to ancient doctrine, the essence of a not show us technology’s essence. In order that
thing is considered to be what the thing is. We ask we may arrive at this, or at least come close to it,
the question concerning technology when we ask we must seek the true by way of the correct. We
what it is. Everyone knows the two statements must ask: What is the instrumental itself? Within
that answer our question. One says: Technology is what do such things as means and end belong?”
a means to an end. The other says: Technology is
a human activity. The two definitions of
technology belong together. For to posit ends and
procure and utilize the means to them is a human
activity. The manufacture and utilization of
equipment, tools, and machines, the
Discussion Technology has become a subject of But for Heidegger, the real essence of technology
philosophers. To this day, there are several is found in enframing. It is the continuous bringing
philosophical views on technology. They include: forth of the concealed to unconcealment - a non-
stop revealing. It continues to demand for
1. Aristotelianism (Aristotle) something to be brought out into the open. The
According to Aristotle, technology is basically a concealed is calling out for someone to set upon
means to an end. It is organizing techniques in and act upon to unconceal the concealed.
order to meet the demand that is being posed by
humans. It is primarily concerned with the For modern technology, Heidegger viewed it as
product and will be judged as either good or bad being revealed by challenging nature instead of
based on the value given to the product which is bringing forth. it is setting upon challenges or
based on its use and effect to the society. demands on nature in order to :

Aristotle’s Four Causes a) unlock and expose, carrying the idea that
1. Causa Materialis or the Material Cause – the nature will not reveal itself unless challenge
material by which it is made of is set upon it; and b) stock pile for future use,
2. Causa Formalis or the Formal Cause – the form aiming to meet the future demands.
or shape of the material
3. Causa Finalis or the Final Cause – the purpose What is the essence of technology? This gathering
or the primary use of the material of the setting-upon which challenges man to bring
4. Causa Efficiens or the Efficient Cause – the the unconcealed to unconcealment, called
agent that has caused for the material to come enframing by Heidegger, also shows the essence
about of technology. Enframing is basically putting in
order whatever is presented to the man who sets
2. Technological Pessimism (Jacques Ellul – upon the unconcealed. Man cannot set himself
French Philosopher, 1912-1994) upon unconcealment without unconcealment’s
Ellul believes that technology has become a way call and the unconcealed will not go into
of life. The said techniques have become a unconcealment without the man responding to its
framework which humans cannot escape. He has call.
several pessimistic arguments, such as technology
progress having a price to pay, it creates more However, there are also dangers in non-stop
problems, damaging effects, and as well as revealing. Revealing opens up a relationship
unpredictable devastating effects. between man and the world, but an opening up of
something means a closing down of something,
3. Technological Optimism (strongly supported which means as something is revealed another is
by technologists and engineers) concealed. An example given by Heidegger on this
If there is a pessimist side, then there is also the is the closing off of a cause-effect understanding
optimist side. This philosophy believes that of reality when an understanding of God as
technology can alleviate all the difficulties and something mysterious and holy opens; but God is
provide solutions for problems that may come. reduced to ‘the god of the philosophers.’
Technological problems may rise but technology
will still be the solution. Technology is the Another danger is when man falls into a
supreme authority on everything. misinterpretation of that which is presented into
him. That is, when he sees himself in the object
4. Existentialism (Martin Heidegger) before him rather that seeing the object itself.
This is the view on the article read above in the This happens when he starts to believe that
activity. This view basically investigates on the everything in the human condition can be
meaning of existence or being and is always faced answered by technology and that even man’s
with the selection one must make with which the happiness is dependent on the continuous
existent will commit himself to. It believes that modernization of technology.
the real essence of technology lies in “enframing”
- the gathering of the setting which challenges WEEK 6
man to bring the unconcealed to unconcealment. The Human Person flourishing in terms of science
In other words, technology is a way of revealing. and technology (Part Il)

Martin Heidegger’s Views on Technology Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to
‘de -develop’ rich countries By Jason Hickel
Martin Heidegger (1889-1996) is a well-known
German philosopher. He questioned the This week, heads of state are gathering in New
Aristotelian and Ellulian definitions of technology York to sign the UN’s new sustainable
(a means to an end, a human activity). development goals (SDGs). The main objective is
to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One
Technology has been instrumentally viewed as the Direction and Malala are on board. It’s set to be a
same in all periods of time, geared towards monumental international cel ebration.Given all
meeting a human need. It invites man to a the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about
continual desire to master it which unconsciously to offer a fresh plan for how to save the world,
making it go out of hand. Everything depends on but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual.
manipulating technology in a proper manner as a The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the
means. same: growth.
Growth has been the main object of development to life expectancy, a number of low- and middle-
for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it’s not income countries rank highly. Costa Rica manages
working . Since 1980, the global economy has to sustain one of the highest happiness indicators
grown by 380%, but the number of people living and life expectancies in the world with a percapita
in poverty on less than $5 ( Php 250 ) a day has income one-fourth that of the US.
increased by more than 1.1 billion. T hat’s 17
times the population of Britain. So much for the In light of this, perhaps we should regard such
trickle -down effect. countries not as underdeveloped, but rather as
appropriately developed. And maybe we need to
Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet start calling on rich countries to justify their
more growth. More progressive typtell us that we excesses.
need to shift some of the yields of growth from
the richer segments of the population to the The idea of “de-developing” rich countries might
poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither prove to be a strong rallying cry in the global
approach is adequate. Why? Because even at south, but it will be tricky to sell to westerners.
current levels of average global consumption, Tricky, but not impossible.
we’re overshooting our planet’s bio -capacity by
more than 50% each year.In other words, growth According to recent consumer research, 70% of
isn ’t an option anymore – we’ve already grown people in middle- and high-income countries
too much. believe overconsumption is putting our planet and
society at risk. A similar majority also believe we
Scientists are now telling us that we’re blowing should strive to buy and own less, and that doing
past planetary boundaries at breakneck so would not compromise our happiness. People
speed. And the hard truth is that this global crisis sense there is something wrong with the
is due almost entirely too verconsumption in rich dominant model of economic progress and they
countries . are hungry for an alternative narrative.

Right now, our planet only has enough resources The problem is that the pundits promoting this
for each of us to consume 1.8 “ global hectares ” kind of transition are using the wrong language.
annually – a standardi zed unit that measures They use terms such as de-growth, zero growth,
resource use and waste. This figure is roughly or – worst of all –dedevelopment, which are
what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala technically accurate but off-putting for anyone
consumes. By contrast, people in the US and who’s not already on board. Such terms are
Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, repulsive because they run against the deepest
while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares – many frames we use to think about human progress,
times their fair share. and, indeed, the purpose of life itself. It’s like
asking people to stop moving positively through
What does this mean for our theory of life, to stop learning, improving, growing.
development? Economist Peter Edward argues
that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch Negative formulations won’t get us anywhere.
up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways The idea of “steady-state” economics is a step in
to get rich countries to “catch down” to more the right direction and is growing in popularity,
appropriate levels of development. We should but it still doesn’t get the framing right. We need
look at societies where people live long and happy to reorient ourselves toward a positive future, a
lives at relatively low levels of income and truer form of progress. One that is geared toward
consumption not as basket cases that need to be quality instead of quantity. One that is more
developed towards western models, but as sophisticated than just accumulating ever
exemplars of efficient living. increasing amounts of stuff, which doesn’t make
anyone happier anyway. What is certain is that
How much do we really need to live long GDP as a measure is not going to get us there and
and happy lives? In the US, life expectancy is we need to get rid of it.
79 years and GDP per capita is $53,000 (Php 2.65
M). But many countries have achieved similar life The west has its own tradition of reflection on the
expectancy with a mere fraction of this income. good life and it’s time we revive it. Robert and
Cuba has a comparable life expectancy to the US Edward Skidelsky take us down this road in his
and one of the highest literacy rates in the world book “How Much is Enough?” where they lay out
with GDP per capita of only $6,000 (Php 300k) and the possibility of interventions such as banning
consumption of only 1.9 hectares – right at the advertising, a shorter working week and a basic
threshold of ecological sustainability. Similar income, all of which would improve our lives while
claims can be made of Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, reducing consumption.
Nicaragua, and Tunisia. (In the Philippines, life
expectancy is 69 years old2, GDP per capita is Either we slow down voluntarily, or climate
$3,485 or around Php 174k3, and consume 1.1 change will do it for us. We can’t go on ignoring
global hectares per person4). Yes, some of the the laws of nature. But rethinking our theory of
excess income and consumption we see in the rich progress is not only an ecological imperative, it is
world yields improvements in quality of life that also a development one. If we do not act soon, all
are not captured by life expectancy, or even our hardwon gains against poverty will evaporate,
literacy rates. But even if we look at measures of as food systems collapse, and mass famine re-
overall happiness and well-being in addition emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th
century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s
certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery
or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On
the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of
understanding and consciousness about what
we’re doing here and why.

Human flourishing is defined as an effort to

achieve self-actualization and fulfilment within
the context of a larger community of individuals,
each with the right to pursue his or her own such
efforts. Humans, just like all organisms, have
innate abilities and characteristics that let them
sustain their function and survive in a given
environment. But in the very center of human
being is an unexplainable thirst for happiness,
serenity, and fulfilment. This unquenchable thirst
towards indefinite bounds of life can only be
sufficed once fulfilled. Why? What is our ultimate
desire for living?

The Greek philosopher Aristotle suggested that

each man’s life has a purpose, and the function of
one’s life is to attain that purpose. Happiness is
the highest desire and ambition of all human
beings. To achieve it, one must cultivate the
highest virtues within one’s self.

Aristotle believed that human beings have a

natural desire and capacity to know and
understand the truth, to pursue moral excellence,
and to instantiate their ideals in the world
through action. These actions are geared towards
one’s proper and desired end - flourishing,
happiness, or “eudaimonia”- a Greek word which
refers to a state of having a good indwelling
spirit, or being in a contented state of being
healthy, happy and prosperous. That is our
ultimate desire for living.