Philosophy 101D

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.