To be richer in spirit we have to experience a greater variety of truth; but reduced to calculators, we cannot. In this world, humans too, have become resources, slaves to a process that constructs an appearance of truth rather than a revelation of the real. To further elaborate on this, Heidegger returns to his discussion of essence. For instance, if an atheist and a believer both look at a church, the one might see it as a beautiful work of art and sketch it, whereas the other might see it as a sacred place of the divine and want to pray in it. On the other hand, all those things that are so familiar to us and are standard parts of assembly, such as rods, pistons, and chassis, belong to the technological. The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. Modern physics, as experimental, is dependent upon technical apparatus and upon progress in the building of apparatus.
Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Here, Heidegger turns to the definition of essence itself to unlock how the danger of Enframing as revealing can unfold a bringing-to-order of true essence when Enframing is already the essence of technology. One is instrumental, to view it as a means to an end, while the other is to see it as human activity. This regulating itself is, for its part, everywhere secured. I want to argue that the dominance of drones and their calculated usage to have mastery over environments, other people, etc. Modern technology, however, exploits the land as pure resource, trying to gain the 'maximum yield at minimal expense'.
The attitude that gives rise to modern technology is the problem. It is more than just an attitude; it changes us. For Heidegger, this way is a counter-part to nature. From the modern scientific point of view, for example, the traditional shepherd is at best too slow and at worst foolishly sentimental. I will wait for your response.
The airliner standing on the runway is a stationary object ordered to be ready for take-off. Man stands so decisively in subservience to on the challenging-forth of enframing that he does not grasp enframing as a claim, that he fails to see himself as the one spoken to, and hence also fails in every way to hear in what respect he ek-sists, in terms of his essence, in a realm where he is addressed, so that he can never encounter only himself. They let it come forth into presencing. Enframing, revealing, challenging, bringing-forth, and poiesis are all forms of destining. But the truth is precisely the opposite, namely that no where is man encountering his essence. Technology itself is a contrivance—in Latin, an instrumentum.
Destining holds complete sway over man, but does not necessarily compel him; rather, man can be free if he is one who listens and hears his position in the realm of destining 25. Like that he makes this point. A means can be seen as that through, and by which an end is effected. The actual threat has already affected man in his essence. Enframing applies here because man is challenged into seeing standing-reserve, and that challenging gathers man into ordering.
To the atheist, the church reveals itself as beautiful and to the believer as holy. As art plays a decreasingly respected and devalued role in our society, this is a serious concern. The gathering concentrates man upon ordering the real as standing-reserve 19. We look into the danger and see the growth of the saving power. Heidegger presents art as a way to navigate this constellation, this paradox, because the artist, or the poet as Heidegger suggests, views the world as it is and as it reveals itself. The four ways of being responsible bring something into appearance. In other words, it is finding truth.
I wish I could answer it, but the truth is I can't. Heidegger argues that although man drives technology forward and takes part in the ordering as a way of revealing, the unconcealment itself is not a human handiwork. This conceptualization of instrumentality as means and ends leads the question further into causality. I've never heard of Heidegger interpreted this way before. The problem is that seeing everything in the world as merely resource in this way dominates the consciousness of humanity. We have lives, goals, desires, personalities, and a position in history that play roles in determining how we relate to the objects around us and how we manipulate them.
He thinks they belong together. He is showing the need to revisit why people make technology, what it is used for, and whether it is really fulfilling the interests of humankind and the Earth in general. The fullness of human consciousness depends upon the fullness with which consciousness allows nature to reveal itself in it. Through this we are not yet saved. The difference, to put it crudely, is that our technological relationship with nature was once as one of steward but now is one of both master and slave.