Snippets
Yet we can be astounded. Before what? Before this other possibility: that the frenziedness of technology may entrench itself everywhere to such an extent that someday, throughout everything technological, the essence of technology may come to presence in the coming-to-pass of truth.
Because the essence of technology is nothing technological, essential reflection upon technology and decisive confrontation with it must happen in a realm that is, on the one hand, akin to the essence of technology and, on the other, fundamentally different from it.
Such a realm is art. But certainly only if reflection on art, for its part, does not shut its eyes to the constellation of truth after which we are questioning. — Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology”
Earlier in this essay, H describes the status of art in Ancient Greece: “They [the arts] brought the presence of the gods, brought the dialogue of divine and human destinings, to radiance … It was a single, manifold revealing.”
It seems that art as such has questioned its essence, and answered: art can be anything whatsoever. But is it time for art to question technology? Not technology in its instrumental sense, but what Heidegger calls “the essence” of technology–technology as a revealing. Is it time for art to put technology on stage? Is that what we’re doing? If this is too cryptic, I apologize. I just wanted an excuse to post what I block-quoted above, which is just a beautiful moment to me.
Wonderful quote. I’m not sure about putting technology on a stage, although that can be done superbly (for example, by Stelarc). I think this is more about art being a technology, the essence of which is emergence. For art to allow singularities to emerge. And whether or not art should question technology is to my mind part of the rigour of applying technologies, to renovate, and continue on. And we can’t forget that every emergent technology in some ways IS questioning technology as it once existed since it renders some things before it redundant or obsolete. No technology will emerge from a vacuum, but rather from the collisions and conglomerations of the world. Cheers, Alec.
Wonderful quote. I’m not sure about putting technology on a stage, although that can be done superbly (for example, by Stelarc). I think this is more about art being a technology, the essence of which is emergence. For art to allow singularities to emerge. And whether or not art should question technology is to my mind part of the rigour of applying technologies, to renovate, and continue on. And we can’t forget that every emergent technology in some ways IS questioning technology as it once existed since it renders some things before it redundant or obsolete. No technology will emerge from a vacuum, but rather from the collisions and conglomerations of the world. Cheers, Alec.
I’m curious about the word “after” in that last sentence. Does it mean that our questioning comes after the “constellation of truth” he mentions? If so, given that that would imply that the questioning and the constellation are separate, what happens upon/within/during the constellation, prior to the questioning? Are there other constellations of truth which are not followed by questioning? Alternatively, does he mean it in the same sense that you might “ask after” or “chase after” something?
I think he’s gone for the academic style with a little too much zeal (or too little exertion), and it’s just ended up obscuring his meaning. Then again, it might just be the fact that it’s been quoted out of context.
Also unclear: the specific implications of the phrases “coming-to-pass of truth” and, more importantly for your post, “technology as a revealing”. I’m sorry, but without a more clearly-defined context, these could really mean anything. How are people supposed to respond to your post when it could be one of any number of potential posts, depending upon their interpretation?
I’m curious about the word “after” in that last sentence. Does it mean that our questioning comes after the “constellation of truth” he mentions? If so, given that that would imply that the questioning and the constellation are separate, what happens upon/within/during the constellation, prior to the questioning? Are there other constellations of truth which are not followed by questioning? Alternatively, does he mean it in the same sense that you might “ask after” or “chase after” something?
I think he’s gone for the academic style with a little too much zeal (or too little exertion), and it’s just ended up obscuring his meaning. Then again, it might just be the fact that it’s been quoted out of context.
Also unclear: the specific implications of the phrases “coming-to-pass of truth” and, more importantly for your post, “technology as a revealing”. I’m sorry, but without a more clearly-defined context, these could really mean anything. How are people supposed to respond to your post when it could be one of any number of potential posts, depending upon their interpretation?
For sure. Putting technology onstage was a misstep and misreading of Heidegger, yeah–I didn’t mean artmaking that aestheticizes technology. I meant art that questions itself, and thus technology, because, as you said, it is technology in as revealing, as “granting” (or whatever the fuck Heidegger calls it–who can keep track?), though of a different mode, i.e. poesis as opposed to ordering or, not to shout Chris’s name or anything, mimesis, if I can make that leap. Thanks, Corey.
For sure. Putting technology onstage was a misstep and misreading of Heidegger, yeah–I didn’t mean artmaking that aestheticizes technology. I meant art that questions itself, and thus technology, because, as you said, it is technology in as revealing, as “granting” (or whatever the fuck Heidegger calls it–who can keep track?), though of a different mode, i.e. poesis as opposed to ordering or, not to shout Chris’s name or anything, mimesis, if I can make that leap. Thanks, Corey.
I think it’s healthy to be reminded that you are not as smart as you think you are at least once a day, and this post from Master Niedenthal is my reminder. I have no idea what Heidigger is talking about, and I have no idea what Alec is talking about. I can see that the words are in English, but they are not connecting for me on a sentence level. I cannot parse the meaning of these phrases and questions. And here I was, feeling good about myself, because at lunch I was reading Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher, understanding a good 75% of his writing. Thank you Herr Martin, and thank you Alec, for the humbling.
I think it’s healthy to be reminded that you are not as smart as you think you are at least once a day, and this post from Master Niedenthal is my reminder. I have no idea what Heidigger is talking about, and I have no idea what Alec is talking about. I can see that the words are in English, but they are not connecting for me on a sentence level. I cannot parse the meaning of these phrases and questions. And here I was, feeling good about myself, because at lunch I was reading Capitalist Realism by Mark Fisher, understanding a good 75% of his writing. Thank you Herr Martin, and thank you Alec, for the humbling.
I think context might help a little, but this is really dealing with the concept ‘technology’ at large, rather than as a discipline, or of a machinic constitution etc. So I related to it, I found it quite valuable to a philosophical sense of technology. And it’s ‘after’ as a verb, not as an adjective. I like how it’s a constellation of truth, already dislodging the problematic concept of truth from a status of finality and rather as its own site. Although we have other words we might prefer to use now, for Heidegger, I think the precision and magnitude of the word are called upon since this quote promotes the energy of emergence, and what better model than the pursuit of truth? We already know he’s using a multiplicity (the constellation) in the place of a final truth.
I’m not having a go at you, Donald, but what is this ‘academic zeal’? Isn’t this a quote by Heidegger, a philosopher? And where do you study Heidegger? Academies. Where is philosophy written? In academies. By whom? Academics. This is not to say there aren’t artist-philosophers, stoned-philosophers, street-philosophers, family-philosophers, but won’t it always be academic by nature? If it isn’t, then one would say that the philosophy doesn’t reach the academy, and what would you prefer your philosophy class to contain than philosophy? This is not to say there isn’t truth to the adjective academic being used pejoratively, I just don’t see your point in relation to a quote by Heidegger, an eminent 20th century philosopher.
If, on the other hand, your problem is Alec’s posting philosophy on HTMLGiant, then it might be worth arguing that, rather than the academic zeal of Heidegger or a reader of Heidegger sharing his passion. It seems to me Alec has been chosen to post on HTML because he likes to write on philosophy at times, for one thing.
I think context might help a little, but this is really dealing with the concept ‘technology’ at large, rather than as a discipline, or of a machinic constitution etc. So I related to it, I found it quite valuable to a philosophical sense of technology. And it’s ‘after’ as a verb, not as an adjective. I like how it’s a constellation of truth, already dislodging the problematic concept of truth from a status of finality and rather as its own site. Although we have other words we might prefer to use now, for Heidegger, I think the precision and magnitude of the word are called upon since this quote promotes the energy of emergence, and what better model than the pursuit of truth? We already know he’s using a multiplicity (the constellation) in the place of a final truth.
I’m not having a go at you, Donald, but what is this ‘academic zeal’? Isn’t this a quote by Heidegger, a philosopher? And where do you study Heidegger? Academies. Where is philosophy written? In academies. By whom? Academics. This is not to say there aren’t artist-philosophers, stoned-philosophers, street-philosophers, family-philosophers, but won’t it always be academic by nature? If it isn’t, then one would say that the philosophy doesn’t reach the academy, and what would you prefer your philosophy class to contain than philosophy? This is not to say there isn’t truth to the adjective academic being used pejoratively, I just don’t see your point in relation to a quote by Heidegger, an eminent 20th century philosopher.
If, on the other hand, your problem is Alec’s posting philosophy on HTMLGiant, then it might be worth arguing that, rather than the academic zeal of Heidegger or a reader of Heidegger sharing his passion. It seems to me Alec has been chosen to post on HTML because he likes to write on philosophy at times, for one thing.
Ass, I feel like an asshole. I understand this probably 50% less than you do. I just really enjoyed that block-quote.
Ass, I feel like an asshole. I understand this probably 50% less than you do. I just really enjoyed that block-quote.
Don’t feel like an asshole. If I want to understand this then I will have to do some work. That’s always a good thing. I had to read Empire by Hardt and Negri three times over the course of two years just to get the basic jist of the book. I am just now starting to comprehend what Zizek is talking about half the time, although his new stuff on Ecology I am finding quite legible. Understanding the great thinkers of our time is heavy lifting, and rightfully so.
Don’t feel like an asshole. If I want to understand this then I will have to do some work. That’s always a good thing. I had to read Empire by Hardt and Negri three times over the course of two years just to get the basic jist of the book. I am just now starting to comprehend what Zizek is talking about half the time, although his new stuff on Ecology I am finding quite legible. Understanding the great thinkers of our time is heavy lifting, and rightfully so.
Thanks, Corey–this is a great clarification of terms.
Technology isn’t meant here, like I said, as an instrument, but rather as the expression of what H calls an “essence,” of something constitutive and not a re-presentation or a utility. The essence of art is also constitution as such, presentation (presencing), or in Heidegger’s lofty terms, a “letting-lie.”
I think it’s worth reading the block-quote as poetry and not as “philosophy,” or as an encountering of the two. From what I can tell, philosophy and poetry are deeply intertwined for Heidegger, to the extent that the one is simply the other in another form. They are both modes of revealing or unconcealing. Heidegger, then, strikes me as somewhat of a poet-philosopher. As a philologist, he uses language in a startlingly material way, and words like “essence” and “revealing” are loaded with connotations. He’s notoriously hard to translate because many of those connotations aren’t accessible in English. This loading of words doesn’t have to do with puns as much as it is the poeticizing of prose. At least that’s my hunch.
Thanks, Corey–this is a great clarification of terms.
Technology isn’t meant here, like I said, as an instrument, but rather as the expression of what H calls an “essence,” of something constitutive and not a re-presentation or a utility. The essence of art is also constitution as such, presentation (presencing), or in Heidegger’s lofty terms, a “letting-lie.”
I think it’s worth reading the block-quote as poetry and not as “philosophy,” or as an encountering of the two. From what I can tell, philosophy and poetry are deeply intertwined for Heidegger, to the extent that the one is simply the other in another form. They are both modes of revealing or unconcealing. Heidegger, then, strikes me as somewhat of a poet-philosopher. As a philologist, he uses language in a startlingly material way, and words like “essence” and “revealing” are loaded with connotations. He’s notoriously hard to translate because many of those connotations aren’t accessible in English. This loading of words doesn’t have to do with puns as much as it is the poeticizing of prose. At least that’s my hunch.
Word, but the rush of lifting is wonderful. Especially when you start to unlock it, as you seem to be doing.
Word, but the rush of lifting is wonderful. Especially when you start to unlock it, as you seem to be doing.
I meant “bringing-forth” and not “letting-lie.” Though they might mean the same thing. I know shit about Heidegger’s super-specialized vocabulary.
I meant “bringing-forth” and not “letting-lie.” Though they might mean the same thing. I know shit about Heidegger’s super-specialized vocabulary.
I’m still confused by the use of the term ‘technology’ here, even after several explanations. I can only conceive of it in flat utilitarian dictionary terms. I feel like it is being used as a metaphor for a grander ‘social’ idea, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what. Is there some other term with a similar feeling that could possibly be replaced to help me understand this concept?
I’m still confused by the use of the term ‘technology’ here, even after several explanations. I can only conceive of it in flat utilitarian dictionary terms. I feel like it is being used as a metaphor for a grander ‘social’ idea, but I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what. Is there some other term with a similar feeling that could possibly be replaced to help me understand this concept?
Okay, so, we’re not thinking technology in terms of means, in terms of a cause with an eventual end–an instrument that man uses. That is the “instrumental” definition. We could compare it to a utilitarian view of language, that when I say something I am representing a thought in order to get what I want.
Heidegger’s technology is only a cause insofar as it is responsible for revealing. Revealing is a very loaded word here. To reveal means, among other things, to keep safe, secure, and to bring-forth. What does technology bring forth? Whereas the Greek poesis, poetry as such, brings forth into unconcealment, modern technology reveals by challenging objects and ordering them. Technology makes objects substitutionable–each object is ordered and put on reserve, may be substited for another–instead of bringing them forth and unconcealing them. An object brought forth and unconcealed is, say, a silver chalice crafted by an artisan: conglomerated material which are brought forth into appearance. Technology, on the other hand, forces man to “set upon” nature, man uses nature for technology. The river is only there for the sake of the power plant, etc.
Okay, so, we’re not thinking technology in terms of means, in terms of a cause with an eventual end–an instrument that man uses. That is the “instrumental” definition. We could compare it to a utilitarian view of language, that when I say something I am representing a thought in order to get what I want.
Heidegger’s technology is only a cause insofar as it is responsible for revealing. Revealing is a very loaded word here. To reveal means, among other things, to keep safe, secure, and to bring-forth. What does technology bring forth? Whereas the Greek poesis, poetry as such, brings forth into unconcealment, modern technology reveals by challenging objects and ordering them. Technology makes objects substitutionable–each object is ordered and put on reserve, may be substited for another–instead of bringing them forth and unconcealing them. An object brought forth and unconcealed is, say, a silver chalice crafted by an artisan: conglomerated material which are brought forth into appearance. Technology, on the other hand, forces man to “set upon” nature, man uses nature for technology. The river is only there for the sake of the power plant, etc.
Hey, just to clarify, I wasn’t criticising anything about Alec’s decision to post it. On the contrary, I think it’s brilliant that people are posting thins like this. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the text quoted, either. I just felt that insufficient information was provided for me to be able to come out of the text and post with an interpretation which I could actually be relatively certain might be valid. I may be in the minority there, though.
As for the “academic” comment, I mean it specifically in reference to the language he uses, not to the concepts about which he’s writing. There’s a strong argument for the possibility of writing about academic subjects in a more accessible manner. I guess it does depend upon the intention. If it’s obfuscation with a more poetic motivation, as Alec suggested, then it’s much more understandable.
I’m just concerned about the possibility of that kind of language being chosen to function almost as a barrier of entry. A few close friends of mine are philosophy students, and they’ve mentioned in the past that a significant number of current philosophers and such academics frown upon anything written in what might be considered an accessible style. They think that philosophy should only be able to be understood by philosophers and academics after years of study and erudition. I’m aware of how general and vague this is, but it’s 2 am at the minute, and the relevant friends might not appreciate it if I call them up for more specific information. Disregard at will.
This is all speculation. I don’t know a great deal about Heidegger, I’m afraid, so I have no idea of what his motivations are. Based on what Alec’s said about him, though, he sounds very interesting. I’ll see if I can read some of his stuff some time soon; I’m just coming up to the glorious expanse of a mid-term holiday, which could be perfect for it.
Oh, and I’m really sorry if I’m being completely dull and stupid here, but the “after” thing still loses me. I’m not sure how you would use it as a verb, there.
Hey, just to clarify, I wasn’t criticising anything about Alec’s decision to post it. On the contrary, I think it’s brilliant that people are posting thins like this. I didn’t think there was anything wrong with the text quoted, either. I just felt that insufficient information was provided for me to be able to come out of the text and post with an interpretation which I could actually be relatively certain might be valid. I may be in the minority there, though.
As for the “academic” comment, I mean it specifically in reference to the language he uses, not to the concepts about which he’s writing. There’s a strong argument for the possibility of writing about academic subjects in a more accessible manner. I guess it does depend upon the intention. If it’s obfuscation with a more poetic motivation, as Alec suggested, then it’s much more understandable.
I’m just concerned about the possibility of that kind of language being chosen to function almost as a barrier of entry. A few close friends of mine are philosophy students, and they’ve mentioned in the past that a significant number of current philosophers and such academics frown upon anything written in what might be considered an accessible style. They think that philosophy should only be able to be understood by philosophers and academics after years of study and erudition. I’m aware of how general and vague this is, but it’s 2 am at the minute, and the relevant friends might not appreciate it if I call them up for more specific information. Disregard at will.
This is all speculation. I don’t know a great deal about Heidegger, I’m afraid, so I have no idea of what his motivations are. Based on what Alec’s said about him, though, he sounds very interesting. I’ll see if I can read some of his stuff some time soon; I’m just coming up to the glorious expanse of a mid-term holiday, which could be perfect for it.
Oh, and I’m really sorry if I’m being completely dull and stupid here, but the “after” thing still loses me. I’m not sure how you would use it as a verb, there.
You mentioned mimesis in an above comment, which to me seems the most interesting way to look at this necessity Heidegger addresses, of not “shutting one’s eyes” to the truth, within the context of this technology. He’s advocating, it seems, for a mimetic immediacy that’s anticipatory, that seeks to reflect the current moment as well as the coming one with the least possible removal (temporally, or via some sort of falseness). “Technology” to me isn’t a specific advancement, any new medium, but the acknowledgement of new and still-unimagined media as having the potential for mimetic honesty. Reminds me of Lukacs’s idea of the divide between the epic narrative and the novelistic, with the epic seeking for an impossible totality, and the novel a merely fragmentary unity that represents a part of the whole with an awareness of the impossibility of doing that at all, really.
You mentioned mimesis in an above comment, which to me seems the most interesting way to look at this necessity Heidegger addresses, of not “shutting one’s eyes” to the truth, within the context of this technology. He’s advocating, it seems, for a mimetic immediacy that’s anticipatory, that seeks to reflect the current moment as well as the coming one with the least possible removal (temporally, or via some sort of falseness). “Technology” to me isn’t a specific advancement, any new medium, but the acknowledgement of new and still-unimagined media as having the potential for mimetic honesty. Reminds me of Lukacs’s idea of the divide between the epic narrative and the novelistic, with the epic seeking for an impossible totality, and the novel a merely fragmentary unity that represents a part of the whole with an awareness of the impossibility of doing that at all, really.
Let’s rephrase the “after” thing this way, Donald: … does not shut its eyes to the truth which we are questioning after.
Does that make sense?
There’s a reason for style in philosophy–maybe the same reason that there’s style in literature. Heidegger, for instance, was inventing an entirely new vocabulary, because his concepts were entirely new. Most thinkers who are often derided as “jargonistic” are in fact inventing new concepts for which new languages are required. This doesn’t excuse inaccessibility. If an educated human male or female over, say, 18 were to read “The Question Concerning Technology” in its entirety–the essay is about 35 pages–no doubt you’d be able to talk coherently and smartly about it. It’s a pretty straightforward text, only Heidegger’s vocabulary is specific to Heidegger’s concepts. It’s different with, say, Derrida, whom you need a lot of time and patience on your hands to read. Not to say it isn’t worth it, but breaking down class barriers? I don’t think so. The guy had the entire history of philosophy–past, present and future–on a bindle stick.
Let’s rephrase the “after” thing this way, Donald: … does not shut its eyes to the truth which we are questioning after.
Does that make sense?
There’s a reason for style in philosophy–maybe the same reason that there’s style in literature. Heidegger, for instance, was inventing an entirely new vocabulary, because his concepts were entirely new. Most thinkers who are often derided as “jargonistic” are in fact inventing new concepts for which new languages are required. This doesn’t excuse inaccessibility. If an educated human male or female over, say, 18 were to read “The Question Concerning Technology” in its entirety–the essay is about 35 pages–no doubt you’d be able to talk coherently and smartly about it. It’s a pretty straightforward text, only Heidegger’s vocabulary is specific to Heidegger’s concepts. It’s different with, say, Derrida, whom you need a lot of time and patience on your hands to read. Not to say it isn’t worth it, but breaking down class barriers? I don’t think so. The guy had the entire history of philosophy–past, present and future–on a bindle stick.
I sound like a shithead here, but does that make sense? I’m tired.
I sound like a shithead here, but does that make sense? I’m tired.
Well, mimesis is mediate, not immediate. Poesis is the immediate, the presentational, no? I think you’re right, though. It’s a future anterior–a present technology which is constituted as such only by deferring to the future and differing from the past. I’m no Heidegger expert–in fact, I’ve barely started on him–but it seems as if there’s a totality here, though it’s always on the horizon.
Well, mimesis is mediate, not immediate. Poesis is the immediate, the presentational, no? I think you’re right, though. It’s a future anterior–a present technology which is constituted as such only by deferring to the future and differing from the past. I’m no Heidegger expert–in fact, I’ve barely started on him–but it seems as if there’s a totality here, though it’s always on the horizon.
Yeah, I did confuse the terms—I suppose I mean immediacy as reflective of the present, not as something unmediated. I’m definitely not well-versed in Heidegger, either, but like the idea of the “bringing-forth,” which I think he equates with poiesis? Generally, though, it’s cool to look at exclusively in terms of poetry (or work like this, poetic philosophy/philosophical poetry). The totality can’t exist in the present, and so needs that recognition of going forward, bringing-forth, to anticipate that whole that will never exist at one distinct time.
Yeah, I did confuse the terms—I suppose I mean immediacy as reflective of the present, not as something unmediated. I’m definitely not well-versed in Heidegger, either, but like the idea of the “bringing-forth,” which I think he equates with poiesis? Generally, though, it’s cool to look at exclusively in terms of poetry (or work like this, poetic philosophy/philosophical poetry). The totality can’t exist in the present, and so needs that recognition of going forward, bringing-forth, to anticipate that whole that will never exist at one distinct time.
No, you don’t sound like a shithead at all. And yeah, that’s the meaning I was getting at when I said about “ask after” and “chase after”. To be honest, I don’t know why I made such a big deal of the “after” thing. I don’t think I meant it to seem as significant a question as it ended up being. I was pretty tired at the time too, but now that I’ve slept it seems a lot less problematic.
What you say about the history of philosophy is very true, particularly in the case of the past. I know that a lot of the time philosophers speak in a highly condensed manner because they’re dealing with individual words and phrases which carry behind them hundreds or thousands of pages of thoughts and concepts. It’s a problem which is very difficult to get around.
I don’t think it’s so much a question of breaking down class barriers as it is one of promoting availability to a significant portion of humanity. The number of people with sufficient knowledge and philosophical background to decipher certain of these texts — perhaps those of Derrida’s ilk more than Heidegger’s, going by what you’ve said — is so small, proportionally, as to be very nearly irrelevant. Philosophy could be of so much benefit to humankind if it were more widely embraced. Imagine how much less shit our leaders could get away with if more of the population had the kind of critical thinking skills key to reading that sort of literature! Perhaps I’m being overly idealistic here, though.
Thanks for posting the quote, anyway. It’s very interesting. I really need to read more philosophers.
No, you don’t sound like a shithead at all. And yeah, that’s the meaning I was getting at when I said about “ask after” and “chase after”. To be honest, I don’t know why I made such a big deal of the “after” thing. I don’t think I meant it to seem as significant a question as it ended up being. I was pretty tired at the time too, but now that I’ve slept it seems a lot less problematic.
What you say about the history of philosophy is very true, particularly in the case of the past. I know that a lot of the time philosophers speak in a highly condensed manner because they’re dealing with individual words and phrases which carry behind them hundreds or thousands of pages of thoughts and concepts. It’s a problem which is very difficult to get around.
I don’t think it’s so much a question of breaking down class barriers as it is one of promoting availability to a significant portion of humanity. The number of people with sufficient knowledge and philosophical background to decipher certain of these texts — perhaps those of Derrida’s ilk more than Heidegger’s, going by what you’ve said — is so small, proportionally, as to be very nearly irrelevant. Philosophy could be of so much benefit to humankind if it were more widely embraced. Imagine how much less shit our leaders could get away with if more of the population had the kind of critical thinking skills key to reading that sort of literature! Perhaps I’m being overly idealistic here, though.
Thanks for posting the quote, anyway. It’s very interesting. I really need to read more philosophers.
if art allows singularities to emerge, as corey asserted above, then i wonder what heidegger would make of art in the age of reproduction, or even more literally as in the case of warhol. in the quote, heid says art is fundamentally different from technology, i guess because it’s something that can not be substituted, i.e. a singularity, yet by means of reproducibility the two veer into an uncommonly common territory.
you asked, ‘is that what we’re doing?’ who’s the we? and do you mean 21st century now, as opposed to last century?
have you read heidegger’s poetry? it’s mostly like his philosophy with line breaks. in one he talks about the three dangers that threaten thinking. i like this line from it: ‘the evil and thus keenest danger is thinking itself. it must think against itself, which it can only seldom do.’
if art allows singularities to emerge, as corey asserted above, then i wonder what heidegger would make of art in the age of reproduction, or even more literally as in the case of warhol. in the quote, heid says art is fundamentally different from technology, i guess because it’s something that can not be substituted, i.e. a singularity, yet by means of reproducibility the two veer into an uncommonly common territory.
you asked, ‘is that what we’re doing?’ who’s the we? and do you mean 21st century now, as opposed to last century?
have you read heidegger’s poetry? it’s mostly like his philosophy with line breaks. in one he talks about the three dangers that threaten thinking. i like this line from it: ‘the evil and thus keenest danger is thinking itself. it must think against itself, which it can only seldom do.’