Heidegger, Technology, & Willing

[Anonymous No.22125883]

>”Without such resolve, we will lose the capacity for action and become mere cogs in the equipment that constitutes the world uncovered by techne”
Is apparently NOT the way to read Heidegger, because:
>”Resolve” (as in phronesis/action) is exactly NOT the position to take according to Heidegger - this is more like Cassirer’s writings on the issue, where he proposes that we need more “control” over technology. WILLING is the exact problem that Heidegger wants to show - we are caught in willing willing in relationship to technology.
What exactly is this "willing willing" dilemma, and how do we escape this without relinquishing what it means to be human? Are we supposed to sit back and let things happen, to no longer have dealings and projects? I'm confused, Heidegger and Heideggerians.

[Anonymous No.22125981]

I’m not a Heideggerian but I’ve read a bit and attended some lectures. I’m not sure he thought there could be an escape. Sometimes he seems to idealize the Greeks. Sometimes he seems to have this romantic idea that poetry or art is a way out. Sometimes he seems to think the answer lie in “authenticity”. I have no idea what any of this means. If I had to guess what he thought in concrete terms I would say he thought that one day God or gods would return and in the meantime we should prepare a clearing for the return of the God or gods. I can only say that because I’ve read Ernst Jünger, a person whom Heidegger seemed to have no problem stealing most of his ideas from without credit.

[Anonymous No.22125987]

>>22125981
I don't see how could claim Heidegger stole his ideas from Junger when Heidegger fleshed out the majority of his ideas before Junger penned anything philosophical. And I'm sure Junger would have said something he felt he was being cribbed, which he wasn't.

[Anonymous No.22126162]

>>22125883
I reached out to the artist who painted this with a simple note of appreciation. He never got back to me. :(

[Anonymous No.22126182]

>>22125987
I don’t see why that matter. If they talked and one of them said something, and the other stole the idea and published it in a book, it hardly matters when one first wrote philosophy, doesn’t it? Anyway, I was really exaggerating. He definitely did not credit Junger enough, but he didn’t just make a career out of stealing from him. Jünger’s talked about his relationship with Heidegger, but it’s all besides the point anyway. My point is their philosophies seem very similar. I’ve read Junger and I’ve gotten something concrete there that I never got from Heidegger. Heidegger is just way too obscure for me to get anything out of. Nobody actually knows what he meant by “authenticity”. It’s not even clear that he had a really concrete notion of it.

[Anonymous No.22126257]

>>22126182
Being and Time was written far earlier than the bulk of Junger's oeuvre, and the "existentialism" of it was largely abandoned by the 1930s. It was mostly Heidegger, the captivating lecturer, phenomenologist, and philologist, getting something published so the people looking to promote him wouldn't be embarrassed by the lack of "work." Heidegger was far more interested in metaphysics, phenomenology, and the history of philosophy than anything else.

[Anonymous No.22126262]

>>22125981
>Sometimes he seems to have this romantic idea that poetry or art is a way out. Sometimes he seems to think the answer lie in “authenticity”. I have no idea what any of this means. If I had to guess what he thought in concrete terms I would say he thought that one day God or gods would return and in the meantime we should prepare a clearing for the return of the God or gods.
Yes, all of this is Heidegger and personally I think it's based as fuck.

[Anonymous No.22126383]

>>22126257
I wasn’t talking about Being and Time. There’s plenty of other stuff Junger wrote in the 50s and 60s that Heidegger picked up. It’s besides the point anyway. They were friends and were presumably talking about ideas and riffed off each other at various points regardless of who published what first. I regret ever making the snarky little remark, frankly. It was merely a finger pointing to a moon and here you are focusing on the finger while you miss the moon. The point was that I found similar yet more concrete ideas in Jünger. That’s all.

[Anonymous No.22126398]

>>22126383
I was already aware of the moon. Not a big fan of what appeared to be entry-level fanboyism when both thinkers are fascinating and worthy of a lifetime's worth of study in their own right.

[Anonymous No.22126405]

>>22126398
I’m not a big fan of yours.

[Anonymous No.22126441]

>>22125883
Mediated mastery obliging endless arms race individually and politically, as opposed to theurgy or anything else in a pre-Modern, pre-'death of God' mode.

[Anonymous No.22126450]

>>22126182
>“authenticity"
It means to be aware of the always possible death of being.

[Anonymous No.22126467]

>>22126450
That's really a pointless definition, Heidegger liked to be obscure for the sake of it. The good part is that you can understand his discourse even if you stick to the "everyday" meaning of authenticity.

[Anonymous No.22126708]

>>22125981
>"Only a God can save us" - Heidegger.
I think what he meant by this is we're basically fucked. We can't save ourselves, we need some outside force to assist us. It made me think about a passing comment Foucault made at a Zen temple in Japan, something along the lines of Europe being dead and that a philosophy of the future will either come from the East or at a point of encounter between Eastern and Western philosophy. With Heidegger, Western thought has reached it's zenith, the highest it can reach under its own momentum, and we must look elsewhere. Heidegger's relationship with D. T. Suzuki and Keiji Nishitani might give us a model for how Eastern and Western can interact, assuming Americanization, MacDonaldization and globalization won't succeed in destroying the indigenous intellectual traditions of Eastern nations. Buddhism is in terminal decline in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. Even in Iran and Turkey, Islam is in total disarray and increasingly unpopular. Hinduism however remains a force.

[Anonymous No.22126880]

bump

[Anonymous No.22127204]

bumpy

[Anonymous No.22127733]

bumpier

[Anonymous No.22128216]

the bumpiest, comfiest bump that will bring Heideggerchads into the thread at the most historically opportune time as to allow for the disclosure of Seyn

[Anonymous No.22128756]

bump

[Anonymous No.22129547]

hump

[Anonymous No.22130013]

>>22125883
>What exactly is this "willing willing" dilemma, and how do we escape this without relinquishing what it means to be human?
Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.22130024]

>>22130013
I've read Ellul, and I don't see how he surpasses Heidegger. If anything, Ellul, Heidegger, and Junger all breach themselves on the same metaphysical shoreline, even if they attack the question from different angles. Heidegger goes "somehow" the furthest, but then again, we're stuck with this
>willing willing
problem that I don't fully understand (both the explication and the implication--what are we supposed to do then? Nothing?).

[Anonymous No.22130156]

>>22130024
>A second essential element consists in ruthlessly destroying the "myth" of Technique, i. e., the whole ideological construction and the tendency to consider technology something possessing sacred character. Intellectuals attempt to insert the technical phenomenon into the framework of their respective intellectual or philosophical systems by attributing to it a quality of supreme excellence; for example, when they demonstrate that Technique is an instrument of freedom, or the means of ascent to historical destiny, or the execution of a divine vocation, and the like. All such constructions have the result of glorifying and sanctifying Technique and of putting the human being at the disposal of some indisputable historical law or other. A further aspect of this element is the sacred, i. e., the human tendency spontaneously to attribute sacred value to what so manifestly possesses transcendent power. Technique, in this view, is not solely an ensemble of material elements, but that which gives meaning and value to life, allowing man not only to live but to live well. Technique is intangible and unattackable precisely because everything is subject and subordinate to it. Man unconsciously invests with a holy prestige that against which he is unable to prevail. It seems to me that the only means to mastery over Technique is by way of " de-sacralization" and " de-ideologization." This means that all men must be shown that Technique is nothing more than a complex of material objects, procedures, and combinations, which have as their sole result a modicum of comfort, hygiene, and ease; and that it possesses nothing worthy of the trouble of devoting one's whole life to it, or of commanding an excessive respect, or of reposing in it one's success and honor, or of massacring one's fellow men. Men must be convinced that technical progress is not humanity's supreme adventure, but a commonplace fabrication of certain objects which scarcely merit enthusiastic delirium even when they happen to be Sputniks. As long as man worships Technique, there is as good as no chance at all that he will ever succeed in mastering it.
The reactionary orientation is entirely committed against so-called technicization (today predominately Right in America, and thus the global media, but was Left only 60 years ago) but is completely oblivious to the actual underlying belief; they will berate 15-minute cities, pandemic lockdowns and the like, but cheer on technological progress through AI and consumer the latest gadgets which only enshrines the unshakable belief in total environmental control into the next generation. This is most directly what "willing willing" refers to, wanting to help "change the world" (no matter in what direction). The most direct confrontation will have to be with reference to the realm of science & technology directly, not in secondary contexts like politics, which merely acts as the front-facing representatives of technicians.

[Anonymous No.22130219]

>>22130156
This is the problem with Ellul fanatics. Ellul does an AMAZING job of painting the sociological picture and capturing the spirit of our times. But he's not alone. Again, Guenon, Junger, and Heidegger also take aim at the same essence of modernity identified by Ellul. But what does Ellul have to say about the very root of our time and how to surpass it? Nothing, he's not philosophically educated on this subject, which makes him a garden-variety anti-status quo doomer, no different from a Baudrillard, Debord, or a Fisher (all who lack the conceptual toolbox and historical perspective to take a step back from the dilemma and see what's really going on).
>The reactionary orientation is entirely committed against so-called technicization (today predominately Right in America, and thus the global media, but was Left only 60 years ago) but is completely oblivious to the actual underlying belief
What is the actual underlying belief? Why is Cassirer wrong in thinking that all we need to do is take a step back, think about our priorities, and then assert control over our creations? Is Heidegger digging deep into the existential psyche by focusing on
>willing willing
... whatever that means. I hazard that it has something to do with the modern need for rational control, the delusion of value neutrality, and the apparent vanquishing of cultural-religious myth that once provided us with meaning... and the likelihood of repeating the same process all over again because of some weird Zen paradox). Maybe Heidegger's notion of "letting be" could help here?

[Anonymous No.22130344]

>>22130219
>Why is Cassirer wrong in thinking that all we need to do is take a step back, think about our priorities, and then assert control over our creations?
Because "taking a step back" is just a way of saying that you don't like the current orientation of society, and you want to readjust some values, modify a culture and mentality here and there, which is entirely in line with rational technical thinking. Either you adopt a reactionary sentimentalist position (Guenon) and claim that all of modernity (and thus the West's entire journey) is corrupt and degenerate, or you force a reorientation of technical development to whatever new theory or idea is considered "optimal", which is again not actually challenging anything. Ultimately man CANNOT step back, he can't even step forward because the rapid advancement of technique determines him, not the other way around. What is needed is not to run away or take a cold distant approach like a scientist, but immersing yourself in the technical milieu to "find cracks" in it. This is what Ellul's life work was about, Debord directly took inspiration from him for the Situationist International - from 1962:
>My "exchanges" with [Jacques] Ellul -- that's quite a grand word. Ellul came to see me in Paris. He says that he approves of the SI [Situationist International], which he knows quite well, with two exceptions, one of which, I believe, concerns the hooligans [les bloussons noirs], and the other of which concerns nothing less than his Christian faith. This is obviously quite astonishing. Afterwards, he sent me a copy of his book Propaganda, which is quite remarkable (an excellent example of what I mentioned at the beginning of this letter, concerning details that can be very important. In this book, what is lacking is only the recognition or at least the hypothesis of some kind of force that could constitute an alternative to the evolution that is disparaged). I understand that Ellul is, in this regard, similar to the Christian presence in the N.C. group.
And Debord and Baudrillard were both part of Socialisme ou Barbarie, so you can see how the ideas proliferated.
>But what does Ellul have to say about the very root of our time and how to surpass it? Nothing, he's not philosophically educated on this subject
Ellul makes very clear that the root of our time is our sanctifying of technique! It's the whole point of his oeuvre. And saying he's not philosophical educated is silly, he's a Hegelian.
>willing willing
It's the same problem of taking a "meta" level overview of things by constantly abstracting, which is inherent in technical growth. You're no longer talking about you "want" to do but what you want to want to do, an ideological approach to things. You distant yourself from the issue in the belief you will better understand it, but you end discussing a whole different problem and ironically missing the forest for the trees.

[Anonymous No.22130354]

>>22130344
>which is entirely in line with rational technical thinking.
Is it identical with rational technical thinking, or is it merely "in line" with it? And if you supplant the metaphysical principle responsible in pursuit of the good, well, that's not exactly the same as pursuing what's "optimal" in a calculative, Enlightenment-Industrial Revolution sense now, is it? And even looking for "cracks in the milieu" doesn't do us any good if we're doomed to repeat the same process without a fundamental change in mentality.

[Anonymous No.22130359]

>>22130344
>>22130354
Like, to really drive this point home, what are we supposed to do? We should do something, shouldn't we? And ideally we shouldn't just be trying to go ape shit either. What is this problem of willing willing? I still don't have a clue where the paradox is, because I've only seen mysticism which I suspect is due to a lack of clarity regarding an alternative or even a lack of faith in the possibility of an alternative.

[Anonymous No.22131274]

bump

[Anonymous No.22131657]

coom

[Anonymous No.22131710]

>>22126182
You are a fucking retard
Also Heidegger doesn't use the word authentic, and its meaning is very clear once you actually read him

[Anonymous No.22131736]

>>22126708
Foucault said that because he was on the CIA’s payroll and they were trying to prop up a globalist religion. They are still doing it actually. Heidegger never said that some sort of salvation was going to come out of East Asia. He never said the Hindus would save us. He never said any of that. When he said “only a God” he meant that unless we open the sort of clearing among ourselves in which a god can reveal himself i.e. the organic and authentic sort of openness toward divine experience that we might expect to find among a medieval, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greek, or whatever, then we are doomed. And that is really at the heart of the issue in his opinion. We literally experience the world and consider it as if it were godless. Until that changes, nothing changes. But then again, Heidegger never said we were doomed and if he did think so, he never said how we thought they doom would come about.

[Anonymous No.22131851]

>>22130359
All you can do is all you really could do anyway, regardless of the politicization of every issue; start small and build relationships from the bottom up. As Ellul said, think globally, act locally.
>what are we supposed to do? We should do something, shouldn't we?
That's the thing, there's nothing that you need to do. Today the mass media mobilizes individuals into participating into some belief; what that belief is is irrelevant (as McLuhan said, the medium is the message). It's the peak of the bourgeois worship of work, that not being productive is equivalent to death. In the postmodern world this moves from physical production to the production of ideas, ideology.

[Anonymous No.22131860]

Heidi was a pedantic cuckold

[Anonymous No.22131912]

>>22131710
Explain it for everyone then valedictorian

[Anonymous No.22131916]

>>22131851
Do you really see ideology as a defining characteristic of the post-modern era? That seems to me to have died in the 20th century. People today don’t appear ideological so much as totally unthinking. Ideology seems almost not even necessary.

[Anonymous No.22131931]

>>22131916
yes there is a believe in our institutions science, markets, the media and democracy that permeates all of the west
ideology functions here as the belief that the way thing are is the only way things should be
while within the framework of these institutions we are offered a certain degree of choice we are unable to go "beyond" this choice and this is how you should conceive of ideology

[Anonymous No.22131962]

>>22131916
Some people say that we're in a "post-ideological" era, but I think real change is not that there are no longer any ideologies, but rather that there are no longer any ideas; in the long-term, all ideologies converge into one, THE "ideology" of the times. In a sense, we are so deep in ideology that we've forgotten what ideas are, or rather the debate surrounding ideas are "settled" - democracy, freedom, human rights, etc., are repeated ad nauseam without thinking as you said, so the dialogue moves beyond it while the core remains immune to criticism.

[Anonymous No.22131976]

>>22131851
And how does acting locally not serve the interests of technique?

[Anonymous No.22132070]

>>22131976
I don't mean that acting locally is itself a good, but that it's the only choice one really has, connecting with real living people rather than digital abstractions that only give a semblance of reality. Of course, technique can and does permeate locally with few exceptions ("Luddite" groups like the Amish), but the only way to address it is at that level; trying to turn mass media or capitalism against itself is always doomed to fail, since it leads to greater integration (this is what happened to the New Left student movements who tried the "long march through the institutions"). If you want a real example, in my own case I'm involved in local politics to prevent my hometown and surrounding region from becoming a tourist trap from its natural beauty. Ironically the push for tourism on the basis of increased investment will only lead to more highways, more suburban sprawl, and more pollution, which will destroy the very beauty that people come to see in the first place.

[Anonymous No.22132198]

>>22132070
So is the problem with technique a problem of abstraction, of universal principles inappropriately applied to particular circumstances? What is the root essence that makes it so problematic? That is what I'm striving to unveil.

[Anonymous No.22132296]

>>22132198
a central point in the thought of the thought of late heidegger is the problem of aletheia. while this is the greek word for truth it also can be understood as unveiling (entbergen). the problem for heidegger is that modern concept of truth (more akin to the latin veritas or the german wahrheit) doesn't think of truth as a contingent unveiling of being but as the correspondence of concept and object.
technology which heidegger traces back to the greek techne and is always a bringing forth (poiesis) based on understanding (episteme). it always unveils being but by treating technology as a mere instrument this nature of technology is concealed from those who use it.
heidegger singles out modern technology because of it's ability to transform and store natural resources, according to him, sets it apart from previously existing technologies. in a sense this enables technology to operate outside of natural limitations and view everything on the planet through its exploitative framework (gestell).
heidegger doesn't really offer a clear out of this situation however. many of his ideas such as geschick, gelassenheit, besinnung can be understood as an openness towards the truth of being as it unveils itself to us this however assumes that something will unveil itself that guides our life or society. there is no course of action we can take intentionally

[Anonymous No.22132332]

>>22132296
To me, I've always interpreted this discourse as a concern over the strength of technology, as it can now change the world to the point where the concerns which originally brought said technology into the world no longer matter. And this is not a normal "my problems are solved, what's next" type of irrelevance, either. It's more like losing a train of thought or having a meandering conversation that departs from the original spark, only with dramatic existential consequences.

[Anonymous No.22133050]

bump

[Anonymous No.22133653]

bump

[Anonymous No.22135078]

bump

[Anonymous No.22135682]

>>22132332
Heideggeranons, is this a fair enough summary of the anti-technology bent?

[Anonymous No.22135937]

>>22126708
>something along the lines of Europe being dead
That is such a European thing to say
Europe as an idea will continue on as long as we're all still worrying about it

[Anonymous No.22135942]

>>22125883
The problem of technology is simply the problem of the self (psyche) and the problem of the state (polis), in the original Platonic sense, both wrapped up into one. When man gains control over his own ends, then he "gains" control of technology, or rather the power of technology dissipates like a mist.

[Anonymous No.22135957]

>>22135942
Would that be recapitulated here in a similar sense? >>22132332 A self-sufficient person has all his needs fulfilled and thus has no need for technology. Technology is driven by an internal lack with the delusion that it can be satisfied by external reality.

[Anonymous No.22135977]

>>22125883
>What exactly is this "willing willing" dilemma
The desire to master technology is the same drive towards mastery that put us in the technological pickle in the first place. It is the all-ubiquity of utilitarian-style means-ends reasoning to the detriment of all other forms and modes of thought that it is the problem to both Heidegger and Horkheimer and Adorno, whereas Cassirer's position on technology is similar to the "just one more lane bro and we will fix traffic" position on infrastructure.
>how do we escape this without relinquishing what it means to be human
Arguably the most human thing of all are ends-in-themselves undertaken for no extrinsic purpose, art being a great example of such an end-in-itself. Such ends-in-themselves can be fostered and be allowed to prosper. This is, by the way, why Kaczynski's critique of technology is juvenile and pedestrian, and his only use is as a filter. Kaczynski rejects ends-in-themselves as decadent surrogate activities, when in actuality, they are what may help us transcend the ubiquity of means-end reasoning and causal-manipulative mastery which is the essence of technology. Instead of crying about how marine biology doesn't satisfy his autistic needs he should realize that learning for the sake of learning, rather than for the sake of manipulation of the natural world, is a wonderful thing to do, and an excellent antidote to the ills of the essence of technology.
>Are we supposed to sit back and let things happen
I'm sure Heidegger would approve of just sitting in the forest and chilling a bit more, yes.
>to no longer have dealings and projects?
You most definitely can have dealings and projects still, you just have to let ends-in-themselves take up more space than constant utilitarian bugman optimization.

[Anonymous No.22135989]

>>22135977
Can't an end-in-itself work synergistically with optimization? A key part of mastery is a little bit of both, isn't it? To borrow Aristotle's terms, to see the broader sphere of poiesis be slowly incorporated into one's character until it is habit, a praxis.

[Anonymous No.22136006]

>>22135977
>I'm sure Heidegger would approve of just sitting in the forest and chilling a bit more, yes.
... as the modern technocratic machine destroys the forest and thus your end-in-itself? That sounds retarded.

[Anonymous No.22136112]

>>22135989
Sure, you can strike a balance, and both styles/modes of thought are needed. I think the point would be that ends-in-themselves must be much more prominent before we reach that balance, and that optimization must always be in service of ends-in-themselves, rather than in the service of itself.

>>22136006
It's a prescription for individual solace since Heidegger is fairly fatalistic and defeatist about it, what with only a God being able to save us. So sure, call it retarded if you want. It is one of my own main points of contention with him - that, along with his claim that we may yet retrieve some more "original" relationship with Being via just chilling, which, to me, reeks of pastoral, elegic romanticism. His favorite novel was Victoria by Hamsun, as related in an anecdote by Gadamer, so it reeks of pastoral, elegic romanticism because it is pastoral, elegic romanticism
Nonetheless his exhortation of ends-in-themselves is wise and needed.

[Anonymous No.22136522]

bump

[Anonymous No.22136861]

Crazy how despite Heidegger assuring us that his texts are free of value judgments everyone who read him comes away with the impression that he takes a clear stance against technology.
The only thing worse and more pretentious than Heidegger are his followers. Saving this thread for when I have sleep apnea.

[Anonymous No.22136966]

>>22135977
>Arguably the most human thing of all are ends-in-themselves undertaken for no extrinsic purpose, art being a great example of such an end-in-itself. Such ends-in-themselves can be fostered and be allowed to prosper. (...) Kaczynski rejects ends-in-themselves as decadent surrogate activities, when in actuality, they are what may help us transcend the ubiquity of means-end reasoning and causal-manipulative mastery which is the essence of technology.
Leave it to the Heideggerians to conjure up imaginary conflicts between intrinsic and extrinsic values.
Activities of an instrumental character are undertaken only because they provide the requirements of something that is valuable in itself. For example if learning is something we value in itself, still in order to learn certain requirements have to be in place, eg. we need an educational system, materials for the production of books etc.
It is absurd to pit extrinsic values and "means-end reasoning" against intrinsic ones, and reject the former in favor of the later. Extrinsic values are just what makes the pursuing of intrinsic values possible.

[Anonymous No.22137307]

>>22132332
Nobody has anything to say about what I said? :(

[Anonymous No.22137914]

bump

[Anonymous No.22137960]

>>22132296
>heidegger doesn't really offer a clear out of this situation however
Didn't he spend his final years writing about what it means for a human to live a life in regard to Being; aka "dwelling"?

[Anonymous No.22138452]

>>22136966
>Leave it to the Heideggerians to conjure up imaginary conflicts between intrinsic and extrinsic values.
It stems from Aristotle, actually.
>Activities of an instrumental character are undertaken only because they provide the requirements of something that is valuable in itself.
Uh-huh, that's how it is supposed to be. According to the most incisive critiques of technology, both the ones by Heidegger and Adorno, the essence of technology consists in the fact that this is no longer so, but instrumental activities - and instrumental reason, in particular - have become all-pervasive.
>It is absurd to pit extrinsic values and "means-end reasoning" against intrinsic ones, and reject the former in favor of the later.
Yes it is, which is also why that is not what I am doing, nor is Heidegger, nor Adorno. Try and find a single quote from me, or one of those authors to back up your strawman. Protip: you can't.
>Extrinsic values are just what makes the pursuing of intrinsic values possible.
Yet they clearly, factically aren't today, as resource accumulation for the sake of resource accumulation and optimization for the sake of optimization is taking place everywhere in industrialized society, and the vast majority of bugmen will look at you like you are deranged for even talking about ends-in-themselves.
Try reading some of the authors being discussed if you want to participate

[Anonymous No.22138551]

>>22126162
He doesn't owe you anything.

[Anonymous No.22138563]

>>22138452
>Yet they clearly, factically aren't today, as resource accumulation for the sake of resource accumulation and optimization for the sake of optimization is taking place everywhere in industrialized society, and the vast majority of bugmen will look at you like you are deranged for even talking about ends-in-themselves.
In other words, in the modern world extrinsic values have been severed from the intrinsic values they are supposed to serve, and what's more, they are now in conflict with intrinsic values. The disagreement is that you think this is clearly happening, and I think that it clearly can't happen.
Economic growth, for example, can be taken as itself valuable (as the unleashing of human productivity and creativity) or valuable in its effects, such as better living conditions and funding the military equipment necessary for national defence. What cannot happen and is absurd to say that it does is that we value (eg.) economic growth extrinsically for providing nothing. You cannot have a tool without a use, because having some use is exactly what makes something a tool.
It is possible, of course, to criticise specific instances of instrumental reasoning in the following ways. We can reject the goal that is aimed at, or we can show that the instrument is incapable of achieving said goal. But there cannot be any sound criticism of instrumental rationality as such.

[Anonymous No.22139030]

>>22132332
bump

[Anonymous No.22139111]

>>22136861
Is it not possible that his readers are able to read between the lines and detect something in a man who clearly lacked a huge degree of self awareness? He didn’t even think he was a romantic reactionary but he so obviously was.

[Anonymous No.22139116]

>>22136006
I think in Heidegger’s thinking, sitting and chilling in the forest would align with a way of being that could create a clearing where that which would supplant the modern technocratic machine can reveal itself? For Heidegger, if everyone thought and acted like poets, there would be no problem.

[Anonymous No.22139120]

>>22135937
But Europe isn’t merely an idea.

[Anonymous No.22139131]

I’ve wondered if when he said only a go can save us if he also meant an Divus Augustus sort of god. I look at things like esoteric Hitlerism, where people believe that Hitler was literally a divine incarnation, and I wonder if that is a Heideggerian god.

[Anonymous No.22139186]

>>22139111
>Is it not possible that his readers are able to read between the lines
It's not like he is being subtle about it. He pretends that he eschews moral considerations because morality is part of traditional philosophy, something he is trying to overcome. But it's impossible to discuss social matters without moral characterization, so he does it anyway.

[Anonymous No.22139805]

>>22132332
your idea is dumb and you should feel bad for posting it. no, I will not elaborate

[Anonymous No.22140228]

>>22130156
>>A second essential element consists in ruthlessly destroying the "myth" of Technique, i. e., the whole ideological construction and the tendency to consider technology something possessing sacred character. Intellectuals attempt to insert the technical phenomenon into the framework of their respective intellectual or philosophical systems by attributing to it a quality of supreme excellence; for example, when they demonstrate that Technique is an instrument of freedom, or the means of ascent to historical destiny, or the execution of a divine vocation, and the like. All such constructions have the result of glorifying and sanctifying Technique and of putting the human being at the disposal of some indisputable historical law or other. A further aspect of this element is the sacred, i. e., the human tendency spontaneously to attribute sacred value to what so manifestly possesses transcendent power. Technique, in this view, is not solely an ensemble of material elements, but that which gives meaning and value to life, allowing man not only to live but to live well. Technique is intangible and unattackable precisely because everything is subject and subordinate to it. Man unconsciously invests with a holy prestige that against which he is unable to prevail. It seems to me that the only means to mastery over Technique is by way of " de-sacralization" and " de-ideologization." This means that all men must be shown that Technique is nothing more than a complex of material objects, procedures, and combinations, which have as their sole result a modicum of comfort, hygiene, and ease; and that it possesses nothing worthy of the trouble of devoting one's whole life to it, or of commanding an excessive respect, or of reposing in it one's success and honor, or of massacring one's fellow men. Men must be convinced that technical progress is not humanity's supreme adventure, but a commonplace fabrication of certain objects which scarcely merit enthusiastic delirium even when they happen to be Sputniks. As long as man worships Technique, there is as good as no chance at all that he will ever succeed in mastering it.
Where is it from?

[Anonymous No.22140415]

>>22140228
Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society I presume.

[Anonymous No.22140437]

>>22137307
I read it and liked the thought. Needs backing from the text

[Anonymous No.22140443]

A lot of people would do well on this thread to learn how the fuck to cite their arguments

[Anonymous No.22140497]

>>22140443
>>22140437
I'm just doing a rough and quick interpretation, getting past the fluff to what I think is the core Heidegger is going at. I'm presuming that you already have engaged with the text and have your own thoughts. If you want me to cite this shit and prove it, you're basically asking me to write at least a 25+ page paper that'll still be
>just trust me bro
at the end of it. Is that what you want on an Agartha knitting forum?

if you have questions or think it's wrong, just give me your thoughts

[Anonymous No.22140667]

>>22140228
https://ellul.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Elluls-1962-Article1.pdf

[Anonymous No.22141060]

bumpeerino

[Anonymous No.22141823]

Bump my ride

[Anonymous No.22141856]

>>22138551
Yes he does

[Anonymous No.22142233]

bumpty dumpty

[Anonymous No.22142879]

humpty

[Anonymous No.22142995]

>>22138563
Most sound post here. All the said critics of technology seem to view technology as something either external to man (and/or his intrinsic, internal relation to nature and the divine) or somehow being beyond its functioning as a tool. There's not an ontological difference between machinery and "life" or "organism" as such, and the material/spiritual beings of existence are all induced into a relational mutual generation. With the possibility of sounding like some crypto Whiteheadian, technology is just the contextual web of tools that allow for both "nature" and "man" to exist in this web. Tools themselves have infinite uses, these infinite uses provide infinite values for their use and thus create ends for themselves. Anything can be a tool, and anything can serve a function for an end in itself. Art, belief, religion, creativity, materials, media, language, electric machines, are all tools, means, ends, everything at once. Technology and optimization do not limit any intrinsic value if they're taken as intrinsic values, this itself is a paradoxical statement. Use, value, mean and end (+ beauty and the good) are inextricably connected and not divisible essentially as far as I could care to notice, but rather functionally. Spengler remains a more profound influence on Heidegger, his poetic language aside (philosophers seem to despise when someone can write well), and his Man and Technics provides a more intuitive understanding of what I tried to babble upwards, for technology being in-man, in-nature, in some sort of inner drive of developmental conflict (in a Goethean sense, rather than Darwinian) thus his pessimism is more comprehensive. Where Spengler and Heidegger and whoever else do still miss is the localisation of technics, since they all seem to think technology is some "western" (whatever that means) but somehow universal phenomenon that hasn't affected other cultures as much and they're now "forced to catch up", when at least to me the history of technology provides a more pluralistic and non-linear account. By any case, I don't get any of the doomer tendencies of any of those thinkers, who seem to view technology as something externally ineffable (of the kind of a Hegelian Spirit) that controls us and not something that we mutually create with itself in a historical process of localized relations. Spengler being a weird exception to this.

[Anonymous No.22143018]

>>22126708
He's saying that we can't ultimately know what forces are controlling us, so we may or may not be the generation chosen by the Gods to return the world to the golden age (personally I think we are). Either way we should strive and train.
I don't think he's saying to go Eastern either, because that's just adopting a foreign idea rather than manifesting what comes from within.

[Anonymous No.22143023]

>>22142995
Found this post very insightful, thank you.

[Anonymous No.22144780]

page 11 bump

[Anonymous No.22144923]

>>22126708
>>22131736
The descent into nihilism and technicity will become an opening once we’re up to the task to see it - the way is through technology as unveiling, not outside it, not against it

Technology itself dismantles technicity and instrumentalism, just like science destroys its own truths and concepts of cause and effect

Read Heideggers text on the ”turning”/Kehre and Hölderlin’s account of the dissolution of the world (”Werden in vergehen”), a dissolution into No-thing - the night - that opens everything and unroots relations so that they can be seen in another way

Heidegger’s thought is preoccupied with the ”turning” literally, in that every ”closure” can become an opening and that unconcealment and concealment happens together - you can see this emphasis in how he reads a simple question of Leibniz’ ”Why is there something rather than nothing?” and ”Nothing is without a cause” (Principle of Sufficient Reason) by TURNING it into ”Why is there…(not) nothing?” and ”nothing is, without a cause”.

In the same way, technicity, nihilism and instrumentalism can be turned, or will be turned, cast away, by technology itself

[Anonymous No.22145592]

>>22142995
>Tools themselves have infinite uses, these infinite uses provide infinite values for their use and thus create ends for themselves. Anything can be a tool, and anything can serve a function for an end in itself. (…) Technology and optimization do not limit any intrinsic value if they're taken as intrinsic values, this itself is a paradoxical statement.

To put it as simply as possible without any jargon, I think the critique here is of a situation where technology itself is worshipped, perhaps under other guises like “greater efficiency,” “profits,” “scientific progress,” etc., while we forget these are meant to serve us, not us to serve them, and the latter increasingly happens worldwide (we increasingly exist to “serve” technological efficiency, becoming “enslaved” by the same tools we made to “improve our lives”). For instance, the creation of computers and machines to “make our lives better”, leading to the paradoxical creation of a society where now we need to be increasingly computerized to fit well into it, must use it for many different types of labor, etc. An exaggerated dystopian example would be a society where, say, only a handful of careers like being a computer programmer, robotics designer or manufacturer, AI researcher, or the like, are respectable ones, everything else is seen as somehow suspect, useless, “impractical,” “old-fashioned,” has less worth, even is increasingly automated or done away with, and so forth. So, paradoxically, we would end up worshipping and serving technicity/instrumentality that had initially been supposed to “serve us.”

[Anonymous No.22145684]

>>22145592
>An exaggerated dystopian example would be a society where, say, only a handful of careers like being a computer programmer, robotics designer or manufacturer, AI researcher, or the like, are respectable ones, everything else is seen as somehow suspect, useless, “impractical,” “old-fashioned,” has less worth, even is increasingly automated or done away with, and so forth.
Or worst of all, contemptible, viewed as disgusting, seen as politically subversive or heretical.