Heidegger claims that the technological understanding of being ultimately leads us to understand everything as resources. This is BAD. Human beings are not resources, according to Heidegger, but sites of openness to, and at the same time manifestations of, ways of being. To the extent that the practices in our culture reveal us as resources, and we allow ourselves continually to get caught up in those practices, we will ultimately become resources instead of Dasein. BAD.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that technology itself is bad. It’s like Nietzsche saying that science is fine but scientism is on a par with religion. Heidegger thinks that about technology. There must be ways of using it, he thinks, that bring out and revivify our way of being rather than cover it up. So: technological understanding of being BAD; technology itself at least potentially GOOD.
But is all technology potentially good? What would you have to do to use technology in a way that doesn’t lead to understanding ourselves and everything else as resources? This is not an idle question. Our publisher would be delighted if the book had a following on Twitter. It is virtually impossible for me to imagine updating people about my latest sock purchases, or Bert’s most recent run-in with the Kharman Guia, and even more impossible for me to imagine people caring. But perhaps this is just my lack of imagination about the medium.
So DISCUSS: Is there a way of using Twitter so that it doesn’t buy into and reinforce the technological understanding of being? Or is Twitter in its very nature predicated on the technological understanding of being. What are examples of ways to use technology that don’t fall prey to the technological understanding of being?