PROMPT: Using a favorite quotation from an essay or book you have read in the last three years as a jumping off point, tell us about an event or experience that helped you define one of your values or changed how you approach the world. Please write the quotation at the beginning of your essay.
"The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already affected man in his essence. The rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth"
- Martin Heidegger in The Question Concerning Technology
It was like banging my head against a brick wall. I sat in the corner and read, and re-read, but I could not extract the significance. It would have made just as much sense if I had read it backwards. Two hours passed before I finished Martin Heidegger's essay, "The Question Concerning Technology." Yet, though I had read the content, I could not decipher its meaning. My brain was overflowing with garbled terms. Poiesis... challenging-forth... bringing-forth... enframing... techne... veritas... alethia... I tried to define them, but then I could not comprehend my own definitions. I attempted to order, decode and contextualize them. I tried to manage them. But all of this led to deeper frustration.
Finally, I reconvened with my debate camp peers, most of whom were stuck in the same mental quagmire. Presuming our instructors would hold our hands and walk us through Heidegger's deep metaphysical musing, I was disappointed when they instead encouraged us to discuss what we had read amongst ourselves. I demanded a formulaic explanation, one filled with summaries, bullet points and Roman numerals. Even a "Heidegger for Dummies" book would have satisfied me. However, after a thorough discussion guided - though hardly controlled - by our instructors, Heidegger's argument began to reveal itself. At this point I realized that my initial method of understanding was flawed. I had been seduced by the power of enframing - so powerful and "correct" that my understanding bore no relationship to alethia, the Truth. I, like the western science Heidegger was critiquing, was only interested in what I could describe define. By expecting a certain outcome, I was challenging-forth. I had developed a narrow-minded view that allowed for only a superficial understanding.
It was an afternoon of exhausting mental gymnastics. Yet, through our group discussion, we were able to engage in a bringing-forth, or poiesis. I discovered the difference between Veritas and Alethia, the subtle yet profoundly significant difference between truth as in correctness and Truth that reveals the true essence of being. My perspective changed. I then knew that I must not predetermine the solution to a problem. By enframing or prematurely passing judgment on a person, thing or idea we are evaluating them solely for their use-value as opposed to seeing them in their essence. For, the way we think about what is true is fundamental to what we believe to be true. To allow for a "more original revealing" I needed to allow my expectations and predeterminations to be defied. This simple paradigm shift has had made a profound change in how I look at the disciplines of study. Stepping back, I realized the brick wall was not wide and could now be easily circumvented.
"The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already affected man in his essence. The rule of Enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth"
- Martin Heidegger in The Question Concerning Technology
It was like banging my head against a brick wall. I sat in the corner and read, and re-read, but I could not extract the significance. It would have made just as much sense if I had read it backwards. Two hours passed before I finished Martin Heidegger's essay, "The Question Concerning Technology." Yet, though I had read the content, I could not decipher its meaning. My brain was overflowing with garbled terms. Poiesis... challenging-forth... bringing-forth... enframing... techne... veritas... alethia... I tried to define them, but then I could not comprehend my own definitions. I attempted to order, decode and contextualize them. I tried to manage them. But all of this led to deeper frustration.
Finally, I reconvened with my debate camp peers, most of whom were stuck in the same mental quagmire. Presuming our instructors would hold our hands and walk us through Heidegger's deep metaphysical musing, I was disappointed when they instead encouraged us to discuss what we had read amongst ourselves. I demanded a formulaic explanation, one filled with summaries, bullet points and Roman numerals. Even a "Heidegger for Dummies" book would have satisfied me. However, after a thorough discussion guided - though hardly controlled - by our instructors, Heidegger's argument began to reveal itself. At this point I realized that my initial method of understanding was flawed. I had been seduced by the power of enframing - so powerful and "correct" that my understanding bore no relationship to alethia, the Truth. I, like the western science Heidegger was critiquing, was only interested in what I could describe define. By expecting a certain outcome, I was challenging-forth. I had developed a narrow-minded view that allowed for only a superficial understanding.
It was an afternoon of exhausting mental gymnastics. Yet, through our group discussion, we were able to engage in a bringing-forth, or poiesis. I discovered the difference between Veritas and Alethia, the subtle yet profoundly significant difference between truth as in correctness and Truth that reveals the true essence of being. My perspective changed. I then knew that I must not predetermine the solution to a problem. By enframing or prematurely passing judgment on a person, thing or idea we are evaluating them solely for their use-value as opposed to seeing them in their essence. For, the way we think about what is true is fundamental to what we believe to be true. To allow for a "more original revealing" I needed to allow my expectations and predeterminations to be defied. This simple paradigm shift has had made a profound change in how I look at the disciplines of study. Stepping back, I realized the brick wall was not wide and could now be easily circumvented.