According to Martin Heidegger, why there is a need to question the essence of technology?

Based on my research Heidegger is concerned with questioning the essence of technology and in
particular, modern technology, which he understands as something different to older, pre-industrialized
forms of technology. 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. The purpose of questioning
technology is therefore to break the chains of technology and be free, not in the absence of technology
but through a better understanding of its essence and meaning. He suggests that there are two
dominant ways of understanding technology. One is instrumental, to view it as a means to an end, while
the other is to see it as human activity. He thinks they belong together.

Why perceiving the essence of technology through its instrumentality or as a "means to an end" could
be brought problems?

Based from what I understood According to Heidegger, there is something wrong with the modern,
technological culture we live till now. In our ‘age of technology’ reality can only be present as a raw
material (as a ‘standing reserve’). This state of affairs has not been brought about by humans; the
technological way of revealing was not chosen by humans. Rather, our understanding of the world - our
understanding of ‘being’, of what it means ‘to be’ - develops through the ages. In our time ‘being’ has
the character of a technological ‘framework’, from which humans approach the world in a controlling
and dominating way.

This technological understanding of ‘being’, according to Heidegger, is to be seen as the ultimate

danger. First of all, there is the danger that humans will also interpret themselves as raw materials. Note
that we are already speaking about “human resources”! But most importantly, the technological will to
power leaves no escape. If we want to move towards a new interpretation of being, this would itself be
a technological intervention: we would manipulate our manipulation, exerting power over our way of
exerting power. And this would only reconfirm the technological interpretation of being. Every attempt
to climb out of technology throws us back in. The only way out for Heidegger is “the will not to will”. We
need to open up the possibility of relying on technologies while not becoming enslaved to them and
seeing them as manifestations of an understanding of being.
What is the essence of technology aside from its uses or instrumentality?

Martin Heidegger assertion that the essence of technology is by no means anything technological serves
variety of purposes:

It allows Heidegger to maneuver his discussion of technology out of the domain of technological
experts. This try to open up the conversation is without delay a democratic gesture remember that this
essay was first presented as a lecture to audiences who where neither philosophers nor technicians and
a strategy to shift the discussion to philosophy a field during which Heidegger himself is that the expert.

Arguing that the essence of technology isn't technological also allows Heidegger to expand the historical
scope of his discussion; afterward he will argue that the essence of technology actually precedes the
historical emergence of the concrete styles of technology within the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries.

This historical expansion, in turn, makes it possible for Heidegger to travel back to Greek philosophy one
of his areas of specialization for a few of the guiding concepts for his analysis.

Is the essence of modern technology different from the essence of prior technologies? How?

For Heidegger, modern technology is not in a million years the same as the older technology. Modern
technology is not a bringing-forth - it's a challenging-forth. It's about maximizing efficiency; it's about
ordering nature and stacking up her resources as standing reserve - which he calls (roughly) enframing.
Nature is reduced to a commodity, and this state of affairs is a danger to humanity. The essence of
modern technology and the value of this foundational essay are completely missed without concepts
such as ordering, setting upon, challenging

I think re: the essence of technology, as the essence of art and any relationship to the world, are all
poesis, unconcealing, revealing the world in a certain way. For technology everything is seen as
"Bestand" - resource to be exploited, while art may reveal beauty of the world. Problem with the
modern world is that though technological outlook has its place in life - when it becomes the main only
outlook, then world becomes hellish Not only nature is seen as merely a resource for exploitation, but
human beings as well. They become sex objects or simply objects for the global economic machinery like
robots to fit in. He heavily critized the mechanical factory agriculture already late 40's and used that as a
example of the technological outlook. Like he said: no more philosophy in Europe, just cybernetics. No
wonder he answered Spiegels question 1966: "What can philosophy and science do to save the world".
Heidegger: "Nothing - only a God can save us" - some miracle "Ereignis" of "Sein". Of course, not -
because philosophy is considered irrelevant in the technologically revealed world, which is THE
problems themselves (no philosophy and on my technological revelation.

What is "enframing"? What is the danger posed by "enframing"?

Based on my research from what I understand Enframing is the essence of modern technology.
Enframing, as Heidegger describes, to the article is a way to understand being and also a way of
revealing human nature. He said that technology allows mankind to reveal what they are and learns
about who they really are

The advantage effects of any given piece of technology on society is difficult to predict

the danger exposed by enframing for example of creating human cloning such robot which was banned
and outlawed by the (United Nations General Asssembly 2005) Because they believe human cloning that
will lead to violates human dignity

According to Martin Heidegger, how to prevent the unwanted consequences of "enframing"?

He states that a reorientation is needed with the world in order for enframing to successfully proceed.
This reorientation would require mankind to think about the effects of technology before the piece of
technology enframes society. Any other way would take away from the possibility of making
advancements in other areas of life, such as spirituality.

Against an orientation that investigates all aspects of the planet and assumes that the globe are often
grasped and controlled through measurement and categorization, Heidegger upholds another art. He
takes us back to an instant within the history of the West before the onset of enframing, back again to
ancient Greece, where the concept of techne which, as we've seen, is that the source of our word
technology included both instrumentality and therefore the fine arts, that is, poiesis. Heidegger
imagines a classical Greece during which art wasn't a separate function within society, but unifying force
that brought together religious life, political life, and social life.

When Heidegger states that "the essence of technology is by no means anything technological," he
means that technology's driving force is not located in machines themselves, nor even in the various
human activities that are associated with modern modes of production.