Prompt: On p. 12 in The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger provides an initial conclusion of this investigation: “Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing.” Explain how this revealing is different from mere instrumentality. Quote directly from Heidegger in your answer and illustrate with a contemporary example or examples.

To begin, I would like to finish the quote that is listed in the prompt. Martin Heidegger (1977) asserts that “[t]echnology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth” (The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt, p. 12). This is unlike the instrumental understanding of technology, which sees technology as a mere means. The instrumentality of technology does not show us the essence of it (Heidegger, p. 6). The revealing of technology can lead us to its essence, whereas the instrumentality cannot. A mere means cannot tell you what something is, but what it can do. I can read books, but does that reduce the book to something that is read? Yes, that may be its purpose or function, but is that all there is to it? To march beyond the instrumentality of technology, its truth must be revealed to us. 

By understanding this “revealing” of technology, we can also understand the bringing forth of technology as well. When we see technology as a “mere means” and ignore the bringing-forth, Heidegger responds by saying that we need the “bringing-forth, poiesis. Physis also, the arising of something from out of itself, is a bringing-forth, poiesis. Physis is indeed poiesis in the highest sense” (Heidegger, p. 10). This “[b]ringing-forth, indeed, gathers within itself the four modes of occasioning-causality-and rules them throughout. Within its domain belong end and means, belongs instrumentality.’ [. . .] The possibility of all productive manufacturing lies in revealing” (Heidegger, p. 12). Instrumentality is encapsulated within the bringing-forth, which is “grounded in revealing” (Heidegger, p. 12). By understanding the revealing of technology, which leads us to the essence of technology, “we shall be able to experience the technological within its own bounds” (Heidegger, p. 4).

The instrumental view of technology does not allow us to do this. It’s quite the opposite. Operating under the instrumental definition of technology leads us to confine technology within our boundaries; “man [. . .] exalts himself to the posture of lord of the earth. In this way the impression comes to prevail that everything man encounters exists only insofar as it is his construct” (Heidegger, p. 27). Technology is not something to be conquered but something to experience. That is what the revealing of technology is leading us to; it is breaking down those boundaries that we have constructed concerning technology. Failing to do so leads to an encounter not with technology but only with ourselves (Heidegger, p. 27). 

Viewing technology as a mere means is a reduction to what it can do efficiently. There is no interest in what it is or our relation to it; it is defined by what it can do. Therefore, technology is reduced to and defined by the “ends that they serve” (Heidegger, p. 4). Viewing technology this way, encourages us in our “will [to] master it” (Heidegger, p. 5). This commonly held instrumental definition of technology is not wrong, but it’s not all there is. Technology is something beyond the end that it serves. For example, the wood on the tree is not merely pencils for college students. Again, when we direct our eyes to the key in our hand, we only see a means by which to lock something; we fail to see the key for what it is, our relationship to it, and its implications, which are acquired through revealing. The revealing of technology does not give us front-row seats to the essence of technology. Yet, it does allow us to see the truth that follows. It is this ‘true’ that “brings us into a free [emphasis added] relationship with that which concerns us from out of its essence” (Heidegger, p. 6). Defining technology as mere instrumentality does not allow this, but establishes the barriers that we have constructed.

Prompt: What’s technology? Who cares/Why should anyone care how “technology” is defined?

Properly speaking, the word technology comes from the word “[t]echnikon[,] [which] means that which belongs to techne” (Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. William Lovitt, 12). The term techne has been utilized “not only for the activities and skills of the craftsman but also for the arts of the mind and the fine arts” (Heidegger, 13). Concisely, we can conceive of technology in two respects: the instrumental and anthropological sense. Essentially, “[technology] is a means and a human activity” (Heidegger, 5). This is not to suggest that it’s as simple as this, but it’s not incorrect either.

Care or interest regarding the definition of technology should be extended to other terms. When we cease to care how words are defined, they become meaningless (devoid of meaning). Using this line of thought, to say “I love you” wouldn’t communicate anything substantial. It might be proper to call such speech “filler.” Or, to say, “She’s an exceptional basketball player” would cease to be a compliment if, at that point, we could even define what a compliment was. When we are talking about technology, we ought to understand what it entails and what it doesn’t. Failing to do so opens the gate to a presupposed idea of what technology is, not what it truly is. This will inhibit dialogue and sometimes prevent it. Val Dusek (2006) points out that “[m]any apparently substantive disagreements really stem from the disputants having two different definitions of what is being discussed” (What is Technology? Defining or Characterizing Technology, 26). Moreover, in Martin Heidegger’s (1977) work, The Question Concerning Technology, numerous footnotes give the reader the context and origin of what a term means. We too must recognize the importance of defining the words we use. If we don’t, it will be as if a person ate a meal without digesting the food. Simply presenting the information (or food) to someone willing to listen (or eat it) is not enough for them to comprehend (or digest) the information.

Is there a moral obligation to care how technology is defined? No, there isn’t. But, without a way to define the things around us, it would become excruciating to interact with the world and those around us. We need a foundation, and definitions like the one for technology provide that. Considering that technology is an important asset to humans and animals, why should we gloss over it? Why should we neglect to understand the meaning of a word that describes the things around us? Various things, such as phones, cars, pencils, and books, are products of and representative of technology. To dismiss technology and what it means is to disregard the importance of items that are crucial to us. 

My name is David Fitzpatrick, and I’m a transfer student from Germanna Community College. I aim to become a professor, as I love to learn and share that knowledge with others. Some of my favorite activities include reading the Bible, walking outside, researching interesting topics, and spending time with my loved ones. I hope that you all have a wonderful semester. God bless.