Coming to Terms with Technoscience: The Heideggerian Way

Author:

Zwart HubORCID

Abstract

AbstractHeidegger’s oeuvre (> 100 volumes) contains a plethora of comments on contemporary science, or rather technoscience because, according to Heidegger, science is inherently technical. What insights can be derived from such comments for philosophers questioning technoscience as it is practiced today? Can Heidegger’s thoughts become a source of inspiration for contemporary scholars who are confronted with automated sequencing machines, magnetic resonance imaging machines and other technoscientific contrivances? This is closely related to the question of method, I will argue. Although Heidegger himself was notoriously ambivalent when it came to method, especially in his later writings, his oeuvre nonetheless contains important hints for how a philosophical questioning of technoscience could be practiced, such as: paying attention to language (to the words that we use) or taking a step backwards (towards the moment of commencement of the type of rationality at work). For Heidegger, method means: being underway, and a philosophical method must be developed along the way. After discussing Heidegger’s views on method, both in his earlier and in his later writings, three dimensions of contemporary technoscience will be addressed, namely: technoscientific objects (research artefacts), technoscientific sites (laboratories as unworldly environments) and technoscience as a global enterprise. In the final section, the question will be addressed whether and how a critical encounter between philosophy and technoscience is possible.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Philosophy,Sociology and Political Science

Reference51 articles.

1. Babich, B. (2018). Between Heidegger and Adorno: Airplanes, radios, and Sloterdijks’ atmoterrorism. Kronos: Philosophical Journal, 6(133), 158–301.

2. Blok, V. (2013). Towards the rehabilitation of the will in contemporary philosophy. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 44(3), 286–301.

3. Blok, V. (2015). Heidegger and Derrida on the nature of questioning: Towards the rehabilitation of questioning in contemporary philosophy. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 46(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.2015.1052659.

4. Blok, V. (2020). Heidegger’s concept of philosophical method: Innovating philosophy in the age of global warming. New York: Routledge.

5. Dahlstrom, D. (1994). Heidegger’s method: Philosophical concepts as formal indications. The Review of Metaphysics, 47(4), 775–795.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3