Philosophy 101D

After looking at the ideas of both Heidegger and Gehlen, I can say that I definately agree with Gehlen more.  The most important of his argument is that techonology is important for human survival.  Technology now plays such a vital role in our lives that most of us would not be able to get through our day without the use of technology.  Without cell phones and computers, our communication to the outside world would become very limited.  These devices not only allow us to broaden our knowledge and link us to the outside world, but make our lives easier.  Gehlen summed up the uses of techonology in three ways: replacement technique, strengthening technique, and facilitation technique.  First, the replacement technique explains that technology replaces human labor.  Gehlen does not mean that technology will eventually rule the world, but that it just makes it easier for humans to complete tasks.  For example, we can handwrite our assignments and papers, but it is much easier if we just type them on a computer and then print them.  With the help of technology, we have now become much more time efficient.  It does not take us weeks and months to travel from one city to another, but just a few hours. Next, he goes on explaining technology as a strengthening technique because it allows us to perform our tasks not only more efficiently, but also in a better manner.  The first thing that comes to my mind would be labeling.  It is not that humans cannot manually stick labels on a certain thing, but an automatic labeler would perform this task much more precisely and rapidly.  The strenghtening technique is what allows technological advances to take place.  Once we invent something, we are not completely satisfied because the next thing we do is try and improve what we first had.  With these constant improvements, we broaden our knowledge through the trial and error method, and also create something that is more efficient.  Lastly is the facilitation technique.  This simply puts technology as a reliance because it is always there to make our lives easier.  Instead of walking to a blockbuster that is a two blocks away, we chose to drive there.  Some can argue that technology almost spoils us, but at the same time, it is just that necessary to function.  Gehlen believes that more innovations in technology will work to our benefit instead of just using what we have.  Looking at the history of mankind, we have come so far as to now we can talk to someone across the globe in just seconds.  Life on earth has remained only because of technology and all it has to provide us.  It is Technology that arises curiosity and allows the growth of intelligence in humans. 

At first, I couldn’t decide if I was on Heidegger or Gehlen’s side.  At first I thought that there was no way that we could be completely dependent on technology.  There must still be some innate part of us that would be able to fend for itself in the wild without any modern technology.  I agree with Heidegger on the point that technology poses dangers to the world.  I think that technology has the potential to blind us to the real world.  Through technology we are told what is cool, what to do, how to act, which cell phone to buy, etc. etc. After thinking about the comment “we are chained to technology” further, I have come to really agree with it.  There is not a minute during the day when I do not have my cell phone by my side.  I have to check my email a dozen times a day because that seems to be the only form of communication on a college campus.  People are so dependent on technology and most of the time I think that people don’t even realize this.  Technology is something that is so ingrained on our society that we don’t realize how dependent on it we really are.  To me, technology can be seen everywhere: the silverware we use to eat our food, the alarm clock that wakes us up every morning, the toothbrush we use to brush our teeth.  How could we make it through the day without technology?  I honestly don’t think that our society could function without technology.  Because of this, I completely agree with Gehlen’s statement about how “we are chained to technology.”  I believe that technology is much more advanced now and we may not necessarily need these advancements.  We could survive with less advanced technology, which I think is part of what Heidegger was getting at.  However, even thought we could survive with simpler technology, we couldn’t survive without technology all together.  Therefore, I have decided that I agree with Gehlen.

Previously, I was unsure about which philosopher I agreed with. After the class debate today, I am leaning towards Gehlen’s ideas. A few of Gehlen’s ideas are that technology is a tool that helps us in this world, humans need to accomplish tasks and technology assists us, and humans and technology are neutral. The reason why I agree with Gehlen’s ideas is because in this world we need technology to survive. The technology can range from very simple examples such as a fishing spear to more modern examples such as water filtration devices. Without these devices, survival would be challenging. Many individuals today would say that a fishing spear can’t count as technology. It is not something mechanical or computerized (our definition of technology in modern days). However, technology is nothing more than a creation by man. Thus, it can be concluded that the fishing spear, which is a device created by man, is a very crude form of technology. Additionally, it can be said that a lot of todays technology is just for convenience (laptops, cars, cell phones). I would agree in the sense that we can do without these examples, but since we are already used to using them, it would seem as if our life has a piece missing to it.

Heidegger’s idea is that we are chained to technology. I stand in the middle of this argument. On one side it can be said that we are chained in the sense that we are always using the technology that we possess. Most of us own cell phones and laptops here on campus. Why would we not utilize this technology to make our lives easier? We can instantly call or e-mail a friend instead of having to walk all the way to their dorm and talk to them. On the flip side we are not necessarily chained to technology. Technology in a sense opens our world. We have the luxury to travel to different places, check out news and sports wherever our current location may be, and discover the other side of the world with just clicks of a mouse. Additionally, technology allows us to see how we can further advance our life and make it much more enjoyable and convenient.

I believe that the great debate on the relationship between people and technology is best characterized by the opposing views of Gehlen and Heidegger.  Gehlen’s view that we need technology in order to advance as a species is consistent with anthropology and history.  It seems natural that as we continue to evolve we would continue to need more technology because we have  both the mental capacity to create it and the need to use it.  Heidegger, however, believes that technology leaves us “un-free.”  As this gap between humans and nature widens, he believes this weakens us. 

 I am apt to agree with Heidegger’s line of thinking.  I think that there is not enough questioning of techology in our society.  While we might be able to access our favorite television shows any time of day at the touch of a button, or make breakfast sandwiches using one handy countertop appliance (yes, these exist and the result is quite delicious) many technological advancements have required much less physical and mental activity of the people that use them.  Technology has left most of us sitting on the couch or at the computer desk tuned into YouTube or VH1 Celebreality, so it is no suprise that such a culture is plagued with obesity, apathy, and depression.  We are also plagued with debt due to our dependency on cell phone contracts and the constant desire to have the latest and greatest mp3 player.  With plenty of free time that would have formerly been filled with manual labor or socializing, we choose to plug into technology because it requires the least of us.   This leads to isolation and decreased physical activity and increased nacissism and selfishness.  Essentially, technology is playing to the lowest common denominator. 

 Furthermore, technology is leaving us even more relient on energy, creating an energy crisis that shows no signs of slowing.  The trend toward technology is simply unsustainable while the public feeds more and more money into new gadgets and televisions.  And if our demand for energy lead to a collapse what would we do?  With no power to run these conveniences, many would be lost.  How would we calculate large sums?  Where would we find deals if eBay no longer existed?  It’s a shock, but we might be forced to learn the math or support local business.  And that would be a great tragedy now wouldn’t it.   

After having read the article by Martin Heidegger, while being a little confused by his writing, which I found to be far too wordy at times and at other times it seemed as though he was just trying to screw up your thinking, I think that I have gained a greater appreciation for what he would call the ‘essence’ of technology. Heidegger brings us on a journey that begins with the questioning of technology. He does not jump into any answers to this questioning. No, he takes us through the four kinds of causes, the revealing of an object’s essence, its purpose and potential, and through many more hoops along the way. I found much of this to be very technical, but in a way that it did not seem to be based on any hard technical phrases. I am not sure if I’m right on this, having only this class as an experience with the study of philosophy, but it seemed as though when it seemed appropriate to give a name to actions or criteria, such as when Heidegger writes that, “We now name the challenging claim that gathers man with a view to ordering the self-revealing as standing-reserve: Ge-stell [enframing],” it makes me question where these phrases come from. Maybe I just allowed myself to be confused by this, but it seemed like that was almost the point at times while trying to understand what Heidegger was trying to convey to the reader of this article. I think that I get the point that we must acknowledge the essence of technology, that there is more than just technology being a “means to an end” or just a “human activity.” Technology must be looked at from this perspective if we are to truly go about the questioning of technology. Hopefully some of your comments will help me out here, if you agreed that it came across as though it was trying to be confusing, or if I’ve just missed the point somewhere along the line and you could help me understand this confusing article from Martin Heidegger.

Like many others in class, I was torn between Gehlen and Heidegger’s views of technology.

Gehlen believes that technology is not a product of the high tech age.  He says that man is an “underdetermined” being, in the fact that nature does not directly give man everything he needs.  Animals, on one hand, have all their basic needs and capacities met by what Mother Nature supplies in the world.  But on the other, man has more desires that need to be met necessary for survival.  He needs to understand the world around him, and by doing this he can understand himself.  In order to do this, man uses technology, the sciences, and culture in order to explain his role in nature.

Thus, Gehlen says that technology is not a product of the high tech age.  Rather, technology is unique and essential for human survival.  As a species, we have discovered, used, and built up upon basic technologies in order to allow us to perform better, strengthen our techniques, and facilitate survival on Earth.  It is human nature to innovate and improve upon our current living situation.

However, I think I have to agree with Heidegger when he says that we are unfree and chained to modern technology.  I feel that it is true that human nature causes us to better improve our situation by adapting better technologies, but in a sense I feel that causes us to be “chained” to the technologies that already exist.  Look at the telephone.  When it was first invented, you needed to communicate with an operator to place a call.  Telephones were connected through land-lines.  But as time went on, a need grew for people to be able to communicate while on the go.  The cellular phone was invented, and today everyone has one.  It became essential to do business, and then even more essential for everyday communication.  Our need to instantly communicate between each other has grown larger and larger as new time went on, and new technology developed.  This may have been a poor example, but I feel that the development of new technologies in order to fuel new needs that were not met by todays or previous technologies “chains” us to it.  Perhaps with modern technology, we already have what we need to survive – now we merely have a desire to improve our lifestyles rather than improving them out of necessity for survival.

    Martin Heidegger’s article was very hard to interpret and understand in-depth.  I am going to try to analyze his concept of Dasein the best I can.  Heidegger first concludes that Dasein is sort of a phenomenology of ‘being there’.  It can be thought of as a human ‘being there’.  So, what exactly does ‘being there’ mean?  Dasein is correlated in terms of existence, in which Dasein exists by its own unique existence.  In reference to us humans, we have a unique ‘being’ that cannot be fully understood by another other modes of ‘beings’.  In other words, we understand our existence unlike any other being.  However, what I do not understand completely is what or who constitutes Dasein?  I believe in order to know your own existence, you should know your own position in the world.  For example, human beings should definitely be aware of things like death and how our life eventually ceases.  This actually made me think a lot because would infants or a person with mental retardation be considered Dasien?  They obviously are incapable of questioning their own being.  Understanding our existence includes analyzing, constructing ideas and making sense of the world around us through the use of our senses.  So, what is Daseign and what is not?

      In addition, Heidegger points out two different ways for Dasein to interact with the world:ready-at-hand and present-at-hand.  He gives the example of a hammer.  When a Dasein is ready-at-hand and is hammering a nail, it is soley paying attention to the nail and not the object the nail is on.  I think this is the case when human beings first act through something.  Everything in the background is faded.  The second, present-at-hand, is when the hammer becomes an object of study in its own right.   The hammer is not longer there to use, but to observe.  Furthermore, the hammer is no longer a simple task between you and the nail, it has now become a major aspect of its surroundings and you focus more on it as an entity.  i think when a human being discovers itself as present-at-hand in this world, it finally discovers it own true existence.  It is no longer ‘being in’ this world as a sole being, but undertsanding ‘being there’ in this world as a whole entity.  We exist because of the understand our surroundings and how to adjust to them, and that is what makes us whole.

In Descartes’ meditations he discusses the concept of true imagination. He claims that it is impossible for him to dream about something which he has no relationship to. I believe this to be true, that I could not produce an image of some object or person without any prior knowledge. The people in my dreams are those who I have seen before. Technology is a tool that could possibly be used to manipulate the features of human faces to produce a unique face. This is to say, that human imagination can be expanded through the use of computers. Now, let me explain this example a little further. Assume that a program, much like ones out there now, can manipulate each feature of a human’s face based on certain principles. These rules could simply state the function and location of human eyes, nose, ears, etcetera, based on human biology. It would not seem to me that technology would be bound to the cognitive limits as humans are. In addition to being able to choose the different features, you could manipulate them individually such that when they were together it would have created a face you have never seen before, without outside influence. Does this example suffice for genuine imagination based around technology?

Gehlen thinks that technology is a product of human thought, so would this allow for the connection to go the opposite way; technology affecting how humans think?

Would Heidegger say that humans are tied tightly enough to technology, that in the future our imagination will be lead by technology? Has human creativity, or imagination, been reduced as a factor of the increase in the use of modern technology?

Despite how the philosophers feel, I think that humans are losing a certain sense of creativity, but that we are only dependant on technology because that is how our society is structured. That is to say, that any person could live alone in the woods without modern day technology, but that isn’t an efficient or desirable way to live.

Let me start off by saying that if you did not attend the Dennett session today you should look into checking him out later during this week because he was very insightful, informative, and quite funny.  I suggest going to one of his sessions for extra xredit if you plan on doing that at all this weekend. 

Dennett spoke about consciousness today during his presentation. The entire room was packed to listen to im speak. I honestly did not know what to expect, but the crowd was standing room only. Dennett opened his session with a cartoon of a making tinking something and having a bubble over his head. The cartoon was poking it. This was a very basic and simple representation was to what any person would interpret as consciousness. He made a joke about it and everyone laughed. He went on to speak about many physical processes that the human brain must interpret in order to perceive the world around them.  He used optical illusions to stress his point even further about what consciousness could be. He used an image of a flag with a cross in the middle of it. He told us to stare at it for x seconds. He changed the slide and it was a white background with a cross in the same position yet you could see flag in the background and a redstripe going through the cross. He kept asking was it real? Was it imagined? Why could we see the stripe and recall it even though it was actually not there? His response was ” I don’t know thats not my field.” Everyone lauged. He continued on with examples like this just in different aspectsof how the brain interprets this signals. I had to leave earley, but this is what i got out of his presentation.

It seemed that Dennett was repetitive in some ways about how the brain interprets signals and how it can be fooled. Our eyes perceive many things in our enviornment but how can we consider what is real and just an illusion. I thought about Descartes from the beginning of the semester when Dennett spoke about this. It also made me think about the matrix. Reality to us is basically electrical signals perceived by the senses that the brain interprets as reality. What are we to do when our brains are fooled by such things as optical illusions? Dennett used an example of a painting and how the artist payed such great attention to “detail”. From far away it appeared that the painting had people on a bridge with hats and belt buckles, etc., yet when Dennett moved closer to the painting to observe this great detail it was nothing more than carefully plaed blobs of paint. This made me consider the fact that we humans are fallible. Our senses do deceive at times as Descartes pointed out. But I feel like Dennett was trying to make a point here. I feel as if he was trying to illustrate that maybe these illusions or misinterpretations of what reality is shows our consciousness. Because we are able to perceive the world in different ways and “see” things that arent really there, this is a factor in showing our consciousness. Our ability to think of things and manipulate the enviorment around us to create these illusions is part of the consciousness that makes us alive and thinking beings. 

Dennett also brought up magic as a point about illusion. He asked about the sawing of a woman in half. He then proceeded to talk about this perception of “real magic” in terms of fairy tales and movies which does not exist and magic that can be performed in reality which is just an optical illusion. Again i think e tries to drive the point that consciousness has much to do with the reality of what we can actually achieve, such as “fake magic”. How we interpret the world and sense it, in my opinion, was a factor that Dennett tried to make about consciouness in humans. We are consciouness because we can think about the world, perceive it, and manipulate it in a fashion to create something in our minds.  

Gehlen and Heidegger bring many very interesting arguments on a wide variety of subjects, some of which are more coherent than others. To me, Gehlen presents better arguments and he discusses things that have much more relevance for any sort of debate. The first of these ideas is that man is ill-equipped by nature and that he must find some other way in order to survive because he has been given nothing to make use of by nature. This is where and why technology comes into play. We have to make or create things in order for our species to survive by any means. However, I don’t believe that this is his most important point. I find it most interesting that he distinguishes between man and animal by noting that man is the only animal that laughs or cries without any real reason, which is to say that other animals may cry, but it is their body’s response to something physical.  The fact that our bodies take over and do something that doesn’t really serve any obvious purpose in a survival stand point is not only strange, it is unique only to us (This idea gives me an urge to stir up the past and reexamine the bower birds, but I will resist the temptation.) I think that it is a combination of these two things that makes Gehlen’s arguments strong and also logical. One can not simply define humans as the only species that uses technology as Marx did because this is clearly not true as it can be seen that some other animals also tools which is a form of technology. It is a combination of the fact that humans are forced to use technology as a means of survival and that we are also unique in other ways such as laughing and crying that defines us.

I know that this title might disturb some of you who did not attend Daniel Dennett’s presentation today called “How Can the Brain be the Seat of Consciousness?”, so let me clarify. The claim that he is the Devil was made by one of Dennett’s critics and fellow philosophers in the year 2000. In this post I wish to present my personal evaluation of his stance on the presence on consciousness using my best interpretation of his presentation. However, I apologize in advance if I get some of the information wrong because I did find the lecture a little hard to follow toward the end. With that having been said, I wish to agree with some of his premises but not the overall conclusion that he reaches.

Professor Dennett began his presentation by suggesting his personally developed premise that the depction of fiction is parasitic on nonfictional dipictions. In other words, the only means by which fiction can exist is through the existence of nonfiction. This is so, he says, because the very definition of fiction is a twisting or bending of real and actual events. From this he concludes that in the same way percetions and images and such are parasitic on consciousness. Following from above, this means that consciousness can only exist through the manipulations of exterior perceptions (as far as I understand). This premis seems very logical and I agree with it but then the question arises: where (in the brain) is this consciousness stored? Next, Dennett used a few illusions to prove the next premis that I agee with. He showed the picture of the green and black American flag and after starring at it when the picture goes away we can perceive a normal red, white, and blue American flag but it does not actual exist on the white background. Dennett asks where we see the red stripes because there is no real red stripes on the board. Thus there can be no image of red stripes in our cortex (brain). So where is this magical image of red that we see because it is not in our brains. This is the basis that Dennett used to get to his ultimate conclusion that the brain is not the seat of consciousness.

As far as the rest of his lecture went I am not so sure because because I got a little confused. To the best of my understanding Dennett claims that the brain is full of a bunch of small “registers” that each contain a number that is merely a function of other registers. Thus the hundreds of billions of registers in our brains make up our consciousness?!?!?!? This premis confused me and as far as I can understand I do not agree with it. Therefore, even though I do not totally agree with his premises that lead to his ultimate conclusion, I also do not think that Dennett is so wrong in any way to be called the Devil. Overall it was a very enlightening experience.

In the debate between Gehlen and Heidegger, I mostly agree with Gehlen. I agree that man is underdetermined by nature while other creatures are sustained through nature itself, like the squirrel and nut example. As for the whole ‘technology replacing magic’ idea, I think technology is a lot like magic in that most people don’t know how it works or how it got here. I agree that technology arises in society without our consent sometimes and really is a product of human nature. I disagree with Heidegger in that I think old technology and modern technology are all the same. Technology helps us better ourselves and our lives. It was the same then as it is now. We may rely upon it more now, but its purpose has always remained constant.I agree with Gehlen that technology should not be how we look at the world, but rather how we behave in the world. Technology is what we use in our lives to work and survive in the world. It is most definitely are behavior. The world is here for our use. Yes, I think Heidegger had a point that the whole earth is not ours to destroy, but I don’t think that was Gehlen’s intentions. Heidegger made it sound like whatever we took from nature was completely ruining what its purpose was, but I don’t think that is always the case. I mean, in some ways we use technology to help preserve the earth and our natural surroundings. For example, our use of technology in science has provided us with ways to possibly use ethanol fuel from corn in order to save other energy sources. I also found this article about crazy technological ways that scientists are thinking they may be able to reduce global warming. It is kind of interesting if you want to read it : http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1088900&nid=108

Heidegger argues that we are too dependent on technology, to go so far as to say that we are “un-free” because of it.  I would be forced to agree, citing the examples of computers and the internal combustion engine.

Computers are an obvious choice, especially to someone who has seen The Matrix trilogy.  While the movie is indeed fictional, and represents the absolute worst-case scenario of humanity’s dependence on technology, it does make a valid point.  We are growing more and more accustomed to machines doing our work for us, and if those machines had the capability to think, they would have realized this dependence long before us, and we would be in trouble, to put it mildly.  Even in reality, where computers are completely dependent on us to write programs and maintain them, when a computer system fails, everything that computer regulates comes to a grinding halt.  In my car, for example, the ignition control computer failed, and the engine would not start.  Another example I have experienced was at work, where our computer system went down due to a power outage, and we had to close early – we couldn’t keep track of inventory and sales figures without the system, and entering the numbers manually would simply take far too long to be worth any extra sales from that night.  The world could have reverted to the Stone Age if the Y2K bug hadn’t been fixed; that is perhaps the closest call the world has come to being crippled by our dependence on computers.

The internal combustion engine is another crutch of humanity, as it powers everything from automobiles to airplanes to the space shuttle.  If suddenly, for some reason, they ceased to function, worldwide civilization would come to a screeching halt, as we would be unable to move people and cargo across large distances.  Given, we would still have access to load bearing animals such as horses and oxen, but those modes of transportation take much longer than any modern system – take the example of the video game (and the real life) Oregon Trail.  It took months for a family to move from Missouri to the west coast.

Today’s debate left me completely torn on the issue of what technology is; Gehlen and Heidegger provide a sense of how and why technology is an important function in today’s society. Like most people already mentioned, Gehlen believes that man is undetermined by nature and in order to cover this lack; he must use technology to his advantage. But to me this seems more like a need that individuals possess to want more of everything, build things faster, and be the first. Understanding technology is crucial to understanding what it means to be humans (that what separates us from animals). Also, technology is important to understanding the world and is inherent in providing psychologically stability for which mankind desperately seeks. Technology is a product of man and it is interesting that Gehlen believes that technology grows naturally and isn’t just a product of human nature. My view is that technology is a replacement for things that helps me adjust to what I deem is appropriate not only to understanding the world but so that I can manipulate how I go about living my life. Having email and cell phones are an absolute mandatory in today’s society and it would seem absurd to me any person not to want to have both these things. I must admit that probably 6 years ago I had no preference for either of these things but now I cannot see myself living without these things. But then I ask myself God forbid I don’t email a professor back or not answer my cell phone when my mom calls I am obliged and chained to provide answers to emails and picking up my phone when it rings. Therefore, Heidegger provides a strong foundation in his ideology that humans are trapped in technology. It just seems like the world is a big puzzle that must be figured it and the only way to figure it out is to be chained down to the resources that provide us with stability for understanding technology which reflects humankind to find complete truth about the world. Cell phones and emails define my existence in the world because without them I would only exist in a physical sense. This then makes me agree with Heidegger that technology is dangerous and to avoid this danger we must pay attention to the essence of technology and where we are taking it (or is it where technology is taking us?- I don’t know).

I must say that I am torn between Heidegger and Ghelen.  I agree with some of both of their beliefs.  First, I will discuss Heidegger.  Heidegger believes that humans are classified as “unfree”, and more specifically, that we are chained to modern technology.  I have to strongly agree with this argument.  Take cell phones for example.  I would be a hypocrite to say that I would be fine without one.  The majority of the population minus some of the elderly use cell phones as an everyday necessity.  Without a cell phone, how do you cancel your appointment? How do you find someone in a large crowd? How do you call for help if your car breaks down? Too many people believe that they can live without their cell phones but I beg to differ.  Take email for another example.  Businesses, universities, organizations, etc strongly depend on this technology.  If a computer crashes, people run around like chickens with their heads cut off.  Suddenly, they can’t function properly.  I happen to have a recent experience with this.  I applied for my US passport at the beginning of January so I could take my spring break trip to Mexico. Well, the week before my trip rolls around and still no passport.  It took me three hours to get through on their emergency phone line, and when I finally did, this is what they told me: “Sorry, our computers are down. There is nothing we can do at this time. Try calling back tomorrow.” You can imagine my anger at this point. The point is, we are so attached to technology in so many different ways that when it’s taken away from us, we don’t know what to do. This argument rolls over into Ghelen’s belief that “humans cannot survive in this world without technology.”  As I mentioned above, it is more than just a cell phone; our entire country is based on computer systems.  While we may have lived without so-called “technology” in the past, I still think technology was present-just in a less complicated way.  It has always been a part of human living and I think it is a crucial necessity to survival.

After our discussion of Heidegger and Gehlen, initially I was not sure whose ideas I agreed with.  However, after the debate at the end of class, I feel like I definitely take Gehlen’s side.  I do not believe that humans can survive without technology.  Technology has been used since the beginning of humanity, although simple inventions and devices they once used might not be what we think of as technology today.  The only way early humans could survive is if they invented strategies and tools (technology) to manipulate their environment for survival, such as means for making a home or catching animals for food.  Of course, ancient strategies like those we would be hesitant to call technology compared to the technology surrounding us today, but technology is simply something created by man.  The most simple form of technology is essential to our survival, while newer and more advanced technology makes our life easier and more efficient. 
Also, I disagree with Heidegger’s belief that we are chained to technology.  Yes, I believe that technology is essential to our survival but rather than being chained and restricted to it, I think technology sets us free and opens up many opportunities for advancement.  How could technology be seen as a chain when it allows us to do so many things that we would never have been able to do before without it?  For Heidegger’s argument, somebody said in the debate in class today that even though we may not have created something (such as cell phones, cars, computers), they are such an important part of society today that we have to use it and are thus chained to technology.  I disagree with this because even though certain technologies are available to me today to make my life easier and more efficient, it does not mean that I have to use them.  Will I use them? Yes, most likely because why wouldn’t I utilize available tools that make my life so much easier and give me so many more opportunities? Therefore, we are not held down to technology with a chain, but technology frees us from “chains” or obstacles that once stood in our way to an easier and more advanced way of living.

In class today we debated Heidegger and Gehlen’s theories behind technology.  Alot of good points were brought up, and I was unable to form a conclusive opinion as to which one I agree with.  Heidegger put distance between humans and technology.  He saw technology as a way to instrumentally look at the world.  Heidegger also insinuated that technology was innately corrupt, and could possibly force humans to become a standing reserve (something on hand solely for our use).  He also said that technology could lead to man seeing himself as God and using nature only for our own benefit.  I believe that Heidegger was much to extreme on his views about the harmful side to technology.  I tend to think that technology is not bad in itself.  Technology only becomes dangerous when people are unable to separate themselves from it.  For example, a computer is not a bad thing, but it can become harmfum when someone is unable to leave their house, because they are addicted to the internet.  I think more humanistically, and believe that the only harm one will expierence is because of themselves or others.  I agree with Heidegger’s statement about humans thinking they are the God of nature.  This mentality could lead to overuse of natural resources and extinctions of species.  People do need to be careful and conciderate of their environment…but not overly so.

Gehlen agreed with Nicha on the idea that “man is the underdetermined creature.”  They meant that man was not born with all the tools to survive, and that all other creatures are.  I disagree with this.  I believe that man can survive without any forms of technology.  It truely is possible for a purson to exist without any tools.  Hypotheticall, someone could live in a forest and eat bugs and drink out of a stream and live.  Whether or not this would be an enjoyable life is determined by personality.  Gehlen saw technology as a chance to advance the species and simplify life.  I certainly agree with this.  Even fairly modern technologies such as cell phones and lap-tops have made our lives much easier.  Galen stated that we use technology as replacement techniques (to compensate for things we can’t do), as stregnthening techniques (to make things that we can do much better), and as facilitation techniques (a way to share the burdon of our needs).  This is definitly true.  Gehlen said that technology was unique to humans, but I disagree with this.  There are animals which use “tools” to acomplish goals.  Gehlen also believed that both humans and technology are non-natural.  I believe that humans are natural beings.  They are not created by another; they are born onto this earth, just like other animals.  All technology may be non natural in the way that it is used (ex. a cave that becomes a home), but technology can also be natural in it’s formulation (cave’s were created naturally, as the earth formed.)  Both Gehlen and Heidegger had unique and interesting concepts about technology and what it is to be a human.  I can not conclude which one is correct as both have logical and seemingly illogical ideals. 

I’m really not too sure where I stand on the Heidegger vs. Gehlen debate because there are points that I agree and disagree with for both sides. I do agree with Heidegger that man is not fundamentally linked to technology. Instead, man is constantly seeking to learn new things about the world, and ways of interacting with the world, and technology happens to be one way with which we explore the world. For Gehlen, technology is essential for man’s survival, and therefore man must make use of the resources available to help him survive. The problem here is that there is no cut off point. Gehlen does not make a point of saying we should make use of only what we need to survive, and then leave the rest of nature to itself, but encourages us to keep taking and taking because that’s just what we do. Heidegger on the other hand, recognizes a danger in the way we make use of our technology, and how we view the world. He says that as long as we view ourselves as god over nature , we will never be able to understand ourselves. I’m not sure how much of this I agree with. I do agree that we need to limit our technological activity with natural resources, not because I’m an environmentalist, but for the selfish reason of wanting there to be enough to go around for humans in the future. Heidegger makes a point of saying that we should not view everything as being put on earth for humans. Well, maybe it wasn’t put here only for humans, but it is still here regardless, so by using it we are simply making use of the resources around us. Maybe my selfish view on this topic is a perfect example of what Heidegger is warning against, but I think that many people would think the same way. It is apparent that our society as a whole believes man to be superior to nature and animals, so Heidegger’s warnings seem to be a little too late to turn around man’s view in that regard.   

In dealing with the ways humans interact with the world, Heidegger makes some realizations with which I am inclined to agree.  Technology is something in our world today that must be accepted and used.  As to whether it is the main source of our interaction with the world or whether it is just one way to interact with the world is to be debated long and often.  Heidegger says that humans have many options as to how they interact with the world.  Technology is one of these.  He says that humans can use technology to interact with the world, but also need to be careful of its dangers.  Technology may, in time, become to powerful for us to control, in a way, and could therefore, be dangerous to us.  There is also another way that humans can interact with the world.  This way is through something called poesis.  In this way, poets are able to reveal truths to the world in ways not using technology.  “Out of concealment, revealing truth”, he calls it.  This observation alone leads me to side with Heidegger because it offers options as to how people interact with the world.  One way of doing something is seldom ever the case.  Yes, technology has its hand in many of the things we do.  However, through one’s mind, through something like poesis, one is able to come up with and reveal truths about the world solely through a pure process that is not influenced by technology.  Again, this option is essential to the acceptance of Heidegger’s argument.  Everything has more than one way of going about it.  Nothing is done in solely one way.  If it were it would most certainly lead to failure.  When that one way of doing something has a glitch everything is lost.  Think of it in terms of computers.  Computers are backed up, a second option in a sense, in case the first one fails.  If there were only one option, technology, then too much would be based on that leading humans into certain danger.

The debate today in lecture definitely got me to look at Heidegger and Gehlen from a different perspective, and I would like to elaborate on them. I agreed and disagreed with many arguments that were brought up. First, I have found myself agreeing with Gehlen’s arguments beause I believe that we all need technology to survive and I don’t look at technology like a chain as Heidegger does, but rather an opportunity. In the world that we live in today techonology is not a chain linked on us or something we have to simply ‘put up with’ technology helps us humans grow and keep up with the world around us. Sure we can state plenty of ‘what if’s that may counter argue Gehlen and agree with Heidegger, but we cannot simply live in a ‘what if’ world. What if we were all fisherman and lived underneath a tree? Sure, maybe technology wouldn’t be a huge part of our lives, and yes Amish people get by with little to no technology, however a majority of our world nowadays does not function like that. We have to live in a right now world now a what if world. Gehlen would even argue the fact that Amish people still do use technology because they use clothing, food, and other objects such as candles to survive. Gehlen sees technology as an opportunity to grow and do things better, faster, and easier to ultimately help us out. I think with the great advancements of technology it is next to impossible to ever go back to a time when there wasn’t technology. Who is to say the growth of technology and our advancements are a bad thing, or a so called ‘chain’? As stated in class, just like you walk your dog with a chain he still has his own mind, body, and thoughts and although he is on a chain he can produce products from himself. That is how I believe we humans are although technology is there and we are forced to use it at times it isn’t holding us back from our thoughts or doings it is merely helping us to do things easier and faster. People can make their own decisions on whether or not to own a cell phone or have a and email account. Technology is there what you do with it and how far you go to use it is ultimately up to you.