CHAPTER 6 AND 7:

THE HUMAN PERSON FLOURISHING IN TERMS OF

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER OUTLINE
1. Selected Views on Technology
2. Martin Heidegger on Science and
Technology
3. The Society in the Face of
Science and Technology
4. Human Being
5. Understanding Human
Flourishing
6. Science and Technology and
Human Flourishing

“Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
President, USA
1882-1945

LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:

1. defined and explained technology and its essence;

2. showed understanding of the human condition and analyzed the effects of S & T to
this condition;
3. perceived the danger of the controlling power of technology has over humans
4. understand the concept of human flourishing;
5. analyze human flourishing in relation to the progress of science and technology; and
6. conceptualize own views on human flourishing.

Introduction

Science and technology has changed human landscape. As discussed in the previous
unit, man tends to show unlimited contentment – eager to seek better replacement for
anything that performs the functions of man. The introduction –of bioengineering, robotics,
and related streams slowly limits the function and purpose of man’s existence in the society.
Robots, machines and other technologies are intended to enhance human condition, or in the
future, replace the human functions in the society. Will the contemporary situations (positive
or negative) threaten human nature? Are all the benefits from the fruits of progress in this
discipline fulfill the main aim of every human being in the society?

Page 1 of 9
 SELECTED VIEWS ON TECHNOLOGY

It has been said that there are many views or ways to how technology is understood.
These philosophies contributed on how technology is understood and utilized by the society.
Some of it will be discussed briefly below.

Aristotelianism

This views technology as basically a means to an end. To

Aristotle, technology is the organization of techniques in order to meet
the demand that is being posed by humans. This may seem that
technology is primarily concerned with the product. Technology will be
judged as either good or bad based on the value given to the product
based on its use and effect to the society.

Technological Pessimism

This view is extremely

supported by French philosopher
Jacques Ellul. Technological
Pessimism holds that technology is
progressive and beneficial in many
ways, it is also doubtful in many ways.
It is said that technology is a means to
an end but this view, technology has
become a way of life. Technique has
become a framework which human
cannot escape. It has introduced ways on how to make things easy. Ellul’s pessimistic
argument are (1) technological progress has a price, (2) technological progress creates more
problems, (3) technological progress creates damaging effects, and (4) technological
progress creates unpredictable devastating effects.
Although Ellul has strongly spoken of his arguments, they are still found to be weak
and not true at all times. Like when he said that technological progress can create more
problems than it solves, he seems to have underestimated the objective decisions a
technician and other technological agencies makes regarding the technology where they
weigh the good and bad effects it can have in the society.

Technological Optimism

This view is strongly supported by

technologists and engineers and also by
ordinary people who believe that technology
can alleviate all the difficulties and provide
solutions for the problems that may come. It
holds that even though technological
problems may arise, technology will still be
the solutions to it. The extreme version of
this philosophy is technocratism which holds
technology as the supreme authority on
everything.

Page 2 of 9
Existentialism
The main concern of this view is the existence or the mode of being of someone or
something which is governed by the norm of authenticity. This view basically investigate the
meaning of existence or being and is always faced with the selection must make with which
the existent will commit himself to.
Martin Heidegger is one of the most known supporters of this philosophy. He did not
stop defining what technology is but has dealt with its essence. To Heidegger, the real
essence of technology lies in enframing, the gathering of the setting upon which challenges
man to bring the unconcealed to unconcealment and this is a continuous revealing. The next
section will further discuss the view of Heidegger that technology is a way of revealing.

MARTIN HEIDEGGER ON SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Martin Heidegger, a well-known German philosopher,

examined two usual definitions of technology: means to an end and
a human activity, because he believed that this kind of confusing
and there are questions to it that we easily overlook. These two
definitions cannot be separated from each other. He called it
instrumental and anthropological definition of technology or simply
means by which the ends are realized. To Heidegger, this may not
be a false definition but it is a misleading one because this limits our
thinking.

The Instrumental Definition of Technology

According to Heidegger, the instrumental definition of technology encourages us to

view technology from different periods of time as not having fundamental differences. But he
claimed that this does not show the true essence of technology. He explained that while
technology is geared towards meeting a human need, still there is a difference between older
handicraft technologies with modern technology. As it is, “a sawmill on a secluded valley of
the Black Forest is a primitive means compared with the hydroelectric plant on the Rhine
River” (Heidegger, 1977, p.1). Heidegger also argued that “technology is by no means
technological” and should not be seen as merely neutral. The problem begins when humans
see it only as a means to an end and disregard the fact that there is a good technology and a
bad technology.
Another problem Heidegger saw in the instrumental definition is that it only invites man
to a continual desire to master it which unconsciously may be making technology go out of
hand. Heidegger said, “Everything depends on our manipulating technology in the proper
manner as a means. We will, as we say, ‘get’ technology ‘spiritually in hand’. We will master
it. The will to master becomes the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from
human control.” (Heidegger, 1977, p.1) With this, he argued that the problem does not fall on
making technology better but on how man sets up technology, his thoughts that makes him
blind to real essence of technology.
For Heidegger, this correct definition of technology is insufficient as it does not bring
out its real essence. He said, “In order that we may arrive at this, or at least come close to it,
we must seek the true by way of the correct. We must ask: What is the instrumental itself?
Within what do such things as means and end belong? (Heidegger, 1977, p.2) In answering
these questions, Heidegger arrived at a discussion od causality which to him in reality initially
involves four ways that leads for something to exist or to be “caused”.

Page 3 of 9
 Aristotle’s Four Causes
Heidegger further studied Aristotle’s Four Causes and illustrated it using a silver chalice
which he said owes its make up from the four causes.

1. Causa Materialis or the Material Cause

The material by which the silver
chalice was made of: Silver
2. Causa Formalis or the Formal Cause
The form or the shape that gave the silver
chalice its image.
3. Causa Finalis or the Final Cause
The purpose or the primary use by which
the silver chalice was made for: to be used during
the Holy Communion as a vessel for the wine that
represents the blood of Christ.
4. Causa Efficiens or the Efficient Cause
The agent that has caused for the silver
chalice to come about: the silversmith

The four causes are all deemed responsible for the bringing forth of the silver chalice.
This bringing forth of something is termed as poiesis and this is characterized by an external
force. It is bringing something concealed to unconcealment which then makes technology as
not only a means to an end but also a mode of revealing. The silver chalice was brought forth
by the silver, by its for, for its purpose, by the silversmith. External factors have caused for the
silver chalice to be brought forth.
On the other hand, something that came about without any external force, like a flower
blooming in the field or a tree bearing its fruits is termed as physis. The flower blossomed
and the tree bore fruit even without external help.

Heidegger’s Technology as a Way of Revealing

Heidegger believed that the genuine substance or the real

essence of technology is found in enframing. This is the continuous
bringing forth into unconcealment that which is concealed. This is a
non-stop revealing and continues to demand for something to be
brought out into the open. This bringing forth out into the open is a
two-way relationship: the concealed is calling out for someone to set
upon it and bring it to unconcealment and the one who receives the
call sets upon and acts upon to unconceal the concealed.
To further illustrate this, he gave some examples through
Ancient Windmill contrasting ancient and modern technology. First, he talked about
the ancient windmill which only relies on the wind blowing and does not store energy
while the modern windmill unlocks the energy which can be for
immediate use and can also be stored up for future use. Second, was
about the peasant planting seeds who only waits for the bringing forth
of the planted seed because there is no challenge set upon the soil.
Modern technology of cultivation on the other hand, challenged the
field that has caused for agriculture to be revolutionized. Now, food
is not only produced for immediate use but can be stored as well for
future use and could cater more population. Third, is about the
wooden bridge that is built to join riverbanks for hundreds of years
without challenge being set upon the river.

Modern Windmill

Page 4 of 9
 While on the other hand, the hydroelectric
plant that was set on Rhine River dammed the river
into the hydroelectric plant so that electrical energy
can be stored and distributed.

Because of this continuous revealing,

Heidegger also pointed out the danger that comes
with technology. The call to unconceal that which is
concealed is also causing something to be
concealed even more. And as one tries to
understand something, there is the tendency to be
closed to the counterpart of which is being opened to
him. There is also tendency for man to
misunderstand the thing that is being unconcealed
before him. Here, Heidegger calls for man to be moe
discerning and considerate of the things that is being
unconcealed before him and those that have
relationship with that thing being unconcealed.

The Mode of Revealing in Modern Technology

Heidegger explained that technology as a mode of revealing does not stop and
continues to be seen in the modern technology but not in the bringing-forth sense. This is a
non-stop revealing. Modern technology is revealed by the challenging nature, instead of
bringing forth, it is setting upon challenges or demands on nature in order to:
Unlock and expose. It carries the idea that nature will not reveal itself unless challenge
is set upon it. This is true with the hydroelectric plant set upon the Rhine River which unlocked
the electricity concealed in it.
Stock piles for future use. As technology is a means to an end, it aims to meet future
demands. The electricity produced by the hydroelectric plant set upon the Rhine River is being
stored for future use in the community.
Modern technology is now able to get more from nature by challenging it. A Heidegger
(1977) said, “Such challenging happens in that energy concealed in nature is unlocked, what
is unlocked is transformed, what is transformed is stored up, what is stored up is in turn
distributed, ad what is distributed is switched about eve anew” (p.5).

The Essence of Technology

The continuous revealing takes place as man allows himself to be an agent in the
setting upon of challenges to nature but Heidegger (1977) argues that this is not mere human
doing. Man is able to set upon which was already concealed as he responds to the call of
unconcealment but “when man, investigating, observing, pursue nature as an area of his own
conceiving, he has already been claimed by a way of revealing that challenges him to
approach nature as an object of research, until even the object disappears into the
objectlessness of standing-reserve (p.6).”
This gathering of the setting-upon which challenges man to bring the unconcealed to
unconcealment is called enframing with which according to Heidegger, also shows the
essence of modern technology. Enframing is basically putting in order whatever is presented
to the man who sets upon the concealed but it is a two-way relationship: man cannot set
himself upon unconcealment without unconcealment’s call and the unconcealed will not go
into unconcealment without the man responding to its call. This makes modern technology
not a mere human doing and with this Heidegger argued that the essence of technology lies
in enframing.

Page 5 of 9
The Danger of the Nonstop Revealing

As said earlier, the mode of revealing does not stop in modern technology. It is
continually calls man to respond to what is presented to him or to the demand for a better and
efficient means to an end. With this comes the continuous challenging forth for the
unconcealed to be unconcealed even more. Here lies the danger that Heidegger talked about.
Revealing opens up a relationship between man and the world but an opening up of
something means a closing down of something which means as something is revealed,
another is concealed. An example given by Heidegger on this “the rise of a cause-effect
understanding of reality closes off an understanding of God as something mysterious and
holy: God is reduced to ‘the god of the philosophers’” (Cerbone, 2008).
Another danger is when man falls into a misinterpretation of that which is presented to
him. That is when he sees himself in the object before him rather than seeing the object itself.
There is also the tendency for a man to be fully engrossed with the enframing that he fails to
weigh the results and consequences of his setting upon an object which may be destructive
not only to himself but even to the surroundings and other people. This happens when he
starts to believe that everything in the human condition can be answered by the technology
and that even man’s happiness is dependent on the continuous modernization of technology.

THE SOCIETY IN THE FACE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

When one looks around him now, he will see that man tends to fond his happiness in
the works of modern technology. Smart phones, tablets, laptops that come in different shapes
and sizes with distinct features seem to be the measure of man’s value. Social media has
also affected the life of many. Face to face social interactions are being lessened and people
keep working hard to update their gadgets. There seems to be no contentment as every time
a new product is released, man finds another need that can only be answered by a new
product. These new products also tend to replace a man in the society as the demand for
manual labor is becoming less and less because of the availability of machineries.

This human condition is not of without hope. Heidegger argued that this can be
prevented if man will not allow himself to be overwhelmed with the enframing that he was set
upon, but he pause for a while and reflect on the value of what is presented before him. A
balance has to be struck between technology being instrumental and anthropological. One
has to understand that technology does not only concern the means but also the end as one
proverb goes, “the end does not justify the means.” For Heidegger, the solution for this is that
man would not be controlling and manipulative of what he was set upon but to also allow
nature to reveal itself to him. With this, according to Heidegger, man will have a free
relationship with technology.

HUMAN BEING

There are many ways of describing a human being. But most of it do not precisely
define or describe a human, or “what does it mean to be a human”. Answers to this question
may have its scientific basis and or philosophical context. Biologist describe human as having
the attributes of living organisms- including plants and animals. This designates that human
being is a complex matter capable of performing life-sustaining processes. Human, being the
highest form of these living organisms, is said to have characteristics which cannot be
sustained through mere science.
Smith (20120 shared that; we can’t turn to science for an answer because in the first
place, science identified human with varied option and limited evidence. He further stressed

Page 6 of 9
that “Biologists aren’t equipped to tell us whether an organism, is a human organism because
“human” is a folk-category rather a scientific one” (paea.2.).
Blakemore and Greenfield (1987; as cited in Bernaldez, 2001), recognized that the
possession of intellect distinguishes a human being from another creature. This intellect
supports self-consciousness and awareness sufficient for the achievement of human’s
functions, discovery of truth, and development of mankind. It may sound universally
acceptable but to Heidegger, the question “What is human being?”, is just the tip of the original
and more valid question “What is the meaning of being?” He thought that such move was to
divert the “inquirer” from the “object of inquiry”.
…according to Heidegger, it was originally the fundamental question of philosophy,
which was pursued by the ancient Greek philosophers but later on neglected, if not forgotten,
in the Western philosophy. Heidegger is not convinced with the reasons used to justify such
neglect- the self-evidence, universality, and indefinability of the concept of being. (Mabaquiao,
n.d. p. 111).
Furthermore, he argued that asking for the meaning of the term “being” doesn’t suggest
that the “inquirer” has no idea about it because in the first place, the meaning of “being” is
associated with the concept of existence, which means that the “inquirer” already has the idea
on the term “however vague or incomplete”. The “inquirer” obviously refers to “man” as
“being”, focuses to the “what” of human existence. This somehow justifies human being’s
adaptability to environmental changes and ability to manipulate environment is the interest of
survival.
Conversely, Heidegger used the term “dasein” which literally means “being there”
focuses on the “modes of existence” or the “who” of “Dasein”. The “modes of existence” is
fundamentally established by two things: (1) Dasein exists in a world and (2) Dasein has a
self that it defines as it exists in such world. (Mabaquiao, n.d p.111). Hence, this supports
human being’s capacity to decide on what is good or bad for them.

UNDERSTANDING HUMAN FLOURISHING

It has been discussed that human being is endowed with innate abilities and
characteristics that let him sustain his function and to survive in the given environment. In the
very center of being is unexplainable thirst which long for happiness, serenity and fulfillment.
The unquenching thirst towards indefinite bounds of life can only be sufficed once fulfilled.
Why does human being feel this way? What is man’s ultimate desire for living?
It would be beneficial if different views will be taken into accounts to understand it well.
The following are the selected philosophers’ point of views:

On Aristotle’s Viewpoint
Aristotle’s teachings suggest that each man’s life has a purpose
and that the function of one’s life is to attain that purpose. For Aristotle,
happiness (earthly) is the highest desire and ambition of all human
beings. And to achieve it, one must cultivate the highest virtues within
oneself. Aristotle believed that human beings have a natural desire and
capacity to know and understand the truth, to pursue moral excellence,
and to instantiate their ideals in the world through action. Furthermore,
these actions are geared towards one’s proper and desired end-
flourishing, happiness, or eudemonia.
What is Eudaimonia?

Page 7 of 9
 Etymologically speaking, eudaimonia is consists of Greek words “eu” which means
“good” and “daemon” which means “spirit”. This literally defines as “the state of having good
indwelling spirit; a good genius”. (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.)
Eudaimonia (also known as Eudaemonism) is a Greek word, which refers to a state of
having a good indwelling spirit or being in a contented state of being healthy, happy and
prosperous. In moral philosophy, eudaimonia is used to refer to the right actions as those that
result in the well-being of an individual. In this case, well-being becomes an essential value.
In general sense, eudaimonia can be perceived as any theory that places the personal
happiness of an individual and his or her complete life at the core of ethical concern (Pennock,
2014, para. 1-2).

On Epiricus’ Viewpoint
Epiricus (born 341 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher who
contradicted the metaphysical philosophers. He believed that balance
and temperance were created space for happiness. His view is not more
of how happiness can be defined but more on theory about the real
source to experience it. Furthermore, it agrees with the ethical doctrine
which claims pleasure is the norm of morality – hedonism but reiterates
the intelligent choice and practical wisdom to measure pleasure against
pain to attain well-being.

On Nietzsche’s Viewpoint

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher and

cultural critic who published intensively in the 1870s and 1880s. He
is known for his criticisms on psychological analyses that resulted
to opposing ideas on the people’s received ideas. As expected,
Nietzsche viewed happiness in a different way. For many
philosophers, happiness could be a ”constant state of well-being”,
but for him, happiness is an “ideal state of laziness”. Consequently,
laziness for him is described as to not have any worries or distress
in life.

Philosophers’ views are the evidence of objective sense of how it means to flourish. It
accepts that man’s ultimate desire of living is to flourish and to experience a life of well-being
(e.g., mental habit) or a kind of value (e.g., insights, outlook). One’s mental habit and value
towards life may deny access to experience fulfillment of life. On the other hand, it may lead
to understanding one’s function through self-actualization. Thus, it justifies why it is difficult
for a person to give exact answer is asked, “What is happiness?” which is almost the same
condition in answering the question, “What is your life’s purpose”.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN FLOURISHING

Page 8 of 9
 We live in the world where science and technology are the forefront of the ever
changing society. Advances and continuous technological growth are the results of intensified
application of scientific knowledge to deliver progress in the society. The rise of information
technologies has made global communications possible. The introduction of gene therapy,
stem cells and cloning has improved the medical and health sectors. Nanotechnology and
robotics made industries flourished. Economic growth and global standing were achieved
through innovations. Scientific applications continuously provide convenience to human lives.
All these and more completes the story of changes, innovations, and progress which impacts
the ethical and moral preference of human in the modern society. Yet, these progress become
problematic because of the ethical or even legal concerns. Examples are debates on whether
human embryo (right to live) is being sacrifice or not in the process of cloning; will the creation
of artificial intelligence (AI)-smarter-than-human intelligence conserves the functionality of
human nature does not; des mining support the nation’s economic development and labor
employment or degradation of environment and human rights infringement?
Indeed, progress in inevitable so as the desire of human to flourish. As scientific and
technological developments increasingly plays significantly to human lives, eudemonistic
orientation of happiness or end. What kinds of virtues were offered by these scientific
progress? For the common good or self-directed? Do they promote well-being? Should the
ethical and moral aspects of human beings be changed to be at par with progress and attain
human flourishing?

Suggested Readings

Hickel, J. (n.d.) Forget ‘developing’ rich countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries.
Retrieved from the website of the THE GUARDIANS:
https://www.theguardian.vom/global-development-professionals-
network/2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countires-de-develop-rich-countires-sdgs
Klein, Lee. (2011). Akiro Kurosawa’s dreams – Village of the Watermills [Motion Picture].
Japan: Warner Home Video
Mabaquiao Jr., N. (2013). Of essences and being: A look at the two faces of phenomenology.
In L. D. Garcia, Exploring Philosophical Terrain (pp. 289-292). Quezon City : C&E
Publishing Incorporated
Alawa, P. (2015). Martin Heidegger on science and technology. It’s implication to the
society. IOSR Journal of humanities and socialscience (IOSR-JHSS), 12 (6), 1-5.
Retrieved from hhttp://www.iosjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol12-
issue6/A01260105.pdf?id=2272
Wisecrack. (2015). Is technology dangerous? (Star Wars+Heidegger) – 8-Bit Philosophy
[Video File]. Retrived from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JOM-sVbKI
The School of Life. (2014). PHILOSOPHY-Heidegger [Video File]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1sGrA7XTU
Sandler, G.B. (2014, Jan. 9). Existentialism: Martin Heidegger, “The question concerning
technology” (part 1) [Video File]. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/wathc?v=4rzYhOOOw40

Page 9 of 9