Questioning Technology's Essence

Questioning Technology

• Questioning is a way of building a path, emphasizing the importance of following the path of thinking rather than focusing on isolated details.
• The goal is to establish a free relationship with technology by understanding its essence, allowing us to experience technology within its proper limits.
• Technology is distinct from its essence, analogous to how the essence of a tree isn't just another tree.
• Remaining fixated on the technological aspects prevents the understanding of technology's essence.
• Both passionate affirmation and denial of technology, as well as viewing it as neutral, can keep us bound and unfree, especially the latter.
• The essence of a thing, according to ancient doctrine, is what that thing truly is.
• The question concerning technology can be answered by exploring what technology is.
• Defining technology involves two statements: it's a means to an end and a human activity, which are interconnected because setting goals and achieving them via tools is inherently human.
• Technology encompasses the creation, use, and purpose of equipment, tools, and machines.
• The current understanding of technology is called the instrumental and anthropological definition.
• The instrumental definition applies even to modern technology, despite its differences from older technology, as it's still a man-made means to an end.
• The instrumental view shapes how we approach technology, emphasizing manipulation as a means to control it, however, this is misguided if technology is more than just a means.
• Being correct about something doesn't mean understanding its essence, only truth can liberate us into a free relationship with technology.
• According to this, the instrumental definition, while correct, doesn't reveal technology's essence.
• Determining what means and end belong to requires uncovering instrumentality's origin.

Causality

• A means is how something is achieved and a cause is what produces an effect.
• Where instrumentality prevails, so does causality.
• Philosophy traditionally recognizes four causes.
• Causa Materialis: the matter something is made of.
• Causa Formalis: the shape something takes.
• Causa Finalis: the end or purpose something serves.
• Causa Efficiens: what brings about the finished product.
• Representing technology as a means unveils itself when tracing instrumentality back to fourfold causality, however, causality's essence remains obscure.
• We have long treated the doctrine of four causes as self-evident, yet questions remain about why there are only four causes and what "cause" truly means.
• Obscuring causality obscures instrumentality and the accepted definition of technology.
• Cause is commonly seen as what brings something about, emphasizing results or effects.
• The causa efficiens sets the standard for all causality, diminishing the importance of the causa finalis.
• Causa relates to the verb "cadere," meaning to fall, indicating what causes something to result in a particular way.
• The Greek term "aition", meaning that to which something is indebted, is distinct from our understanding of causality as "bringing about," which is a Roman interpretation.
• The four causes represent interconnected ways of being responsible for something.
• Using the example of a silver chalice, silver (hyle) is co-responsible as the material.
• The chalice's form (eidos) is also co-responsible as the shape it takes is indebted to eidos.
• The telos, or circumscribing boundary that confines the chalice to its sacred purpose, is highly responsible.
• Telos should be understood as boundary-giving and completing, not merely aim or purpose.
• Finally, the silversmith is responsible for the sacred vessel's form; not as a causa efficiens, but for carefully interrelating the three ways of being responsible and indebted. He brings forward (apophainesthai) the sacred vessel into appearance.