WEFOUNDthe question concerning technology


Some writers approach the question of the historicity of Jesus by identifying the conflicting accounts in the New Testament, thereby raising doubts about their veracity. For example, Michael Biagent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , affirm that although according to popular tradition the origin and birth of Jesus are well known, the gospels on which that tradition is based are considerably vague and inconsistent with one another. Only Matthew and Luke contain details about Jesus’ origins and birth, but their narratives contradict each other.

Yet, any of the rules may be wrong or inapplicable in novel situations. As Dawkins correctly argues, the flip side of unquestioning obedience is slavish gullibility. It follows that the unprecedented influence of the gospels and religion generally is partly attributable to intellectual viruses generated by the tendency of dogmatically believing certain propositions to be true whether or not there is evidence for accepting them. Think about it! Concluded.

Worse still, a 2016 study of patients at the Radiation Oncology Department at University College Hospital, UCH, Ibadan i...

Some writers approach the question of the historicity of Jesus by identifying the conflicting accounts in the New Testament, thereby raising doubts about their veracity. For example, Michael Biagent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , affirm that although according to popular tradition the origin and birth of Jesus are well known, the gospels on which that tradition is based are considerably vague and inconsistent with one another. Only Matthew and Luke contain details about Jesus’ origins and birth, but their narratives contradict each other.

Yet, any of the rules may be wrong or inapplicable in novel situations. As Dawkins correctly argues, the flip side of unquestioning obedience is slavish gullibility. It follows that the unprecedented influence of the gospels and religion generally is partly attributable to intellectual viruses generated by the tendency of dogmatically believing certain propositions to be true whether or not there is evidence for accepting them. Think about it! Concluded.

Worse still, a 2016 study of patients at the Radiation Oncology Department at University College Hospital, UCH, Ibadan i...

Overview Guide
pp. 311-313
pp. 313-316
pp. 316-318
pp. 318-319
pp. 319-324
pp. 325-328
pp. 328-333
pp. 333-338
pp. 338-341 Terms Lives Times Questions Resources CriticaLink | Heidegger: The Question Concerning Technology | Guide to pp. 311-313 "In what follows we shall be questioning concerning technology. ."

Heidegger's method of "questioning" strives to expose the unexamined assumptions that shape our understanding of the world we live in. He tries to find the "blind spots" in our thinking that keep us from a more profound--and, we might say now, more "empowering"--way of conceiving the world and our place in it. In "The Question Concerning Technology," he asks, "how do we generally think about technology?" He comes up with two answers:

  • technology is a means to an end
  • technology is a human activity

These answers make up what Heidegger calls the current "instrumental [aimed at getting things done ] and anthropological [a human activity] definition of technology" (288). He concedes that this definition is correct--that it describes technology accurately--but it does not go far enough for Heidegger's purposes.

Heidegger’s essay is a dense and challenging read. This piece is my first exposure to him, and I feel I can’t do the material justice after a single read-through. There are so many layers and dots to be connected in this work that comprehension, for me, can’t come from just reading but must be augmented by additional study and discussion. I’m hoping tonight’s class meeting will provide me with a more solid structure or framework within which I can better process and make meaning of this essay.

I find after just one reading I’m not able to paraphrase the main idea/concept/message of this piece, so I won’t attempt to. Instead, I’ll highlight a few passages that resonated with me for various reasons.

“Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to pay homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology” (311-312).

Some writers approach the question of the historicity of Jesus by identifying the conflicting accounts in the New Testament, thereby raising doubts about their veracity. For example, Michael Biagent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , affirm that although according to popular tradition the origin and birth of Jesus are well known, the gospels on which that tradition is based are considerably vague and inconsistent with one another. Only Matthew and Luke contain details about Jesus’ origins and birth, but their narratives contradict each other.

Yet, any of the rules may be wrong or inapplicable in novel situations. As Dawkins correctly argues, the flip side of unquestioning obedience is slavish gullibility. It follows that the unprecedented influence of the gospels and religion generally is partly attributable to intellectual viruses generated by the tendency of dogmatically believing certain propositions to be true whether or not there is evidence for accepting them. Think about it! Concluded.

Worse still, a 2016 study of patients at the Radiation Oncology Department at University College Hospital, UCH, Ibadan i...

Overview Guide
pp. 311-313
pp. 313-316
pp. 316-318
pp. 318-319
pp. 319-324
pp. 325-328
pp. 328-333
pp. 333-338
pp. 338-341 Terms Lives Times Questions Resources CriticaLink | Heidegger: The Question Concerning Technology | Guide to pp. 311-313 "In what follows we shall be questioning concerning technology. ."

Heidegger's method of "questioning" strives to expose the unexamined assumptions that shape our understanding of the world we live in. He tries to find the "blind spots" in our thinking that keep us from a more profound--and, we might say now, more "empowering"--way of conceiving the world and our place in it. In "The Question Concerning Technology," he asks, "how do we generally think about technology?" He comes up with two answers:

  • technology is a means to an end
  • technology is a human activity

These answers make up what Heidegger calls the current "instrumental [aimed at getting things done ] and anthropological [a human activity] definition of technology" (288). He concedes that this definition is correct--that it describes technology accurately--but it does not go far enough for Heidegger's purposes.

Some writers approach the question of the historicity of Jesus by identifying the conflicting accounts in the New Testament, thereby raising doubts about their veracity. For example, Michael Biagent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail , affirm that although according to popular tradition the origin and birth of Jesus are well known, the gospels on which that tradition is based are considerably vague and inconsistent with one another. Only Matthew and Luke contain details about Jesus’ origins and birth, but their narratives contradict each other.

Yet, any of the rules may be wrong or inapplicable in novel situations. As Dawkins correctly argues, the flip side of unquestioning obedience is slavish gullibility. It follows that the unprecedented influence of the gospels and religion generally is partly attributable to intellectual viruses generated by the tendency of dogmatically believing certain propositions to be true whether or not there is evidence for accepting them. Think about it! Concluded.

Worse still, a 2016 study of patients at the Radiation Oncology Department at University College Hospital, UCH, Ibadan i...

Overview Guide
pp. 311-313
pp. 313-316
pp. 316-318
pp. 318-319
pp. 319-324
pp. 325-328
pp. 328-333
pp. 333-338
pp. 338-341 Terms Lives Times Questions Resources CriticaLink | Heidegger: The Question Concerning Technology | Guide to pp. 311-313 "In what follows we shall be questioning concerning technology. ."

Heidegger's method of "questioning" strives to expose the unexamined assumptions that shape our understanding of the world we live in. He tries to find the "blind spots" in our thinking that keep us from a more profound--and, we might say now, more "empowering"--way of conceiving the world and our place in it. In "The Question Concerning Technology," he asks, "how do we generally think about technology?" He comes up with two answers:

  • technology is a means to an end
  • technology is a human activity

These answers make up what Heidegger calls the current "instrumental [aimed at getting things done ] and anthropological [a human activity] definition of technology" (288). He concedes that this definition is correct--that it describes technology accurately--but it does not go far enough for Heidegger's purposes.

Heidegger’s essay is a dense and challenging read. This piece is my first exposure to him, and I feel I can’t do the material justice after a single read-through. There are so many layers and dots to be connected in this work that comprehension, for me, can’t come from just reading but must be augmented by additional study and discussion. I’m hoping tonight’s class meeting will provide me with a more solid structure or framework within which I can better process and make meaning of this essay.

I find after just one reading I’m not able to paraphrase the main idea/concept/message of this piece, so I won’t attempt to. Instead, I’ll highlight a few passages that resonated with me for various reasons.

“Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to pay homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology” (311-312).

In this original proceeding, relator Christopher R. deFilippi seeks a writ of mandamus to obtain possession of his three children after the unexpected death of their mother.   The Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge of the 406th Judicial District Court of Webb County, denied relator's habeas corpus petition.   We conclude that the trial judge had a ministerial duty to return the children to their father and therefore conditionally grant mandamus relief.

Christopher is the father of three school-age children, D.F., M.F., and A.F. Christopher was married to Marissa Keene, the children's mother and custodial parent.   The couple divorced in Maryland in 2005 after a contentious custody dispute.   Christopher was awarded regular, unsupervised visitation with the children.   The Maryland court concluded that both parents were of good moral character and loved their children, but declined to order joint custody based on the couple's inability to communicate with each other.

In 2006, after additional contested proceedings in Maryland, Marissa and the children moved to Laredo, Texas.   Although Christopher continued to live in Maryland, he visited the children in Laredo approximately one week per month.   Christopher did not have a home in Laredo so he and the children stayed in a hotel suite during these visits.   Also, during the year the children lived in Laredo, they returned to visit their father in Maryland on several occasions.


512b7UafqCL