Talk:The Question Concerning Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Heidegger never in fact mentions a "water wheel" in the essay. He does contrast modern power generation with a "windmill", however, so I have edited accordingly. (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a section concerning Heidegger's essay The Turning from the same volume be added to this entry. It elucidates many of the issues in The Question Concerning Technology. Also some secondary sources might be helpful, which shouldn't be hard to find. Perhaps the rating should be changed to be of higher importance, because this book is influential and frequently studied to the best of my knowledge. -- (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Other readings of The Question Concerning Technology, as well as my own understanding, suggest that enframing endangers the revealing of things by turning them into resources. The article as it stands has almost the opposite sentiment to anything else I've read! (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. This article not only needs a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic, but also in terms of correcting it's content. As it is, it's interpretation of Heidegger is wildly inaccurate. Cuthalion1 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

I'm removing large quantities of original research from the article, as agreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Question Concerning Technology. Concerned editors should feel free to build up the article using reliable secondary sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

October 2014: Edit[edit]

Hello. I am interested in editing this page to provide a summary of Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology." Wikipedia has become an important resource for many students as they attempt to understand dense philosophical readings. I believe this page should be updated to better help users.

In my edit, I have relied upon the following sources:

University of Hawaii Guide to "Question Concerning Technology"

Stanford University Guide to Heidegger

Waddington, David (2005), "A Field Guide to Heidegger Understanding The Question Concerning Technology", Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 37, No. 4,.

I plan to update this post soon (within the next week). I wanted to generate conversation first, as this seems to be the appropriate protocol. Please offer feedback and suggestions. --Aimesmc (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, those look like good sources. If you are a new contributor you will want to read WP:ANALYSIS. Encyclopedic writing for Wikipedia is a bit different from academic writing in that we are not looking for a contributor's analysis, original thought, or synthesized conclusions, but rather a summary of what reliable sources say (their conclusions, their analysis, their thought, etc) about a subject. For a more general overview you may want to read WP:FIVEPILLARS. Feel free to ask any questions along the way. Best, - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. Thank you for your reply and your help. I have read the pages you suggested, and they were very helpful.
In terms of using sources, is it acceptable in this instance to provide direct quotations from "The Question Concerning Technology" to help exemplify points and connect the summary directly to the text?
Also, is it allowed to directly quote from one of the secondary sources? For example, the University of Hawaii Guide to "Question Concerning Technology" says something really well-- in fact, they say it better than I could ever paraphrase/summarize it. Am I allowed to directly quote the guide, providing I cite it appropriately?
I look forward to your reply. Thank you again. --Aimesmc (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, direct quotations from the primary source ("The Question Concerning Technology") are permitted and especially useful in support of the descriptive text. Brief quotes from secondary sources are OK, but they're usually handled as an in-text attribution, e.g. John Doe characterized Smith's early work as "energetic but deeply flawed" and "often misinterpreted as great literature by the general public". Not sure you'd want to quote a university course guide, it may be better to summarize the essential points from it in your own words. WP:PARAPHRASE might help explain it better. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Re good editorial practices: I note that so many of our philosophy articles are in poor shape it's hard to find a good exemplar for you to follow. My advice is to strive to write text that most people would agree accurately reflects the majority (and any significant minority) of scholarly thought on the subject without directly plagiarizing those sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is gobbledygook[edit]

A hazard of writing about Heidegger, but this article is incoherent to anyone who doesn't speak Heideggerian. I can't imagine anyone who hasn't already intensively studied Heidegger reading this article and thinking, "Oh, I get it." (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

commodification of nature[edit]

I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably also in the main page for Heidegger: commodification of nature. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Link to French version[edit]

Hello, I've found the French version of this article and it isn't linked. I'm not sure how to do it unfortunately. Perhaps there are other language versions which are not linked? -- (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Free relationship[edit]

An analysis of the part on free relationship

. . . the relationship between humans and technology, a relationship Heidegger calls a "free relationship".

The relation between human existence and technology is not “a relationship[that] Heidegger calls a "free relationship". A free relationship is constitutive of any human existence’s relation to the revealed essence (truth) of any being. If the The Greek the word for revealing is aletheia, Then (to quote Heidegger) “Only the true brings us into a free relationship with that which concerns us from out of its essence”. Thus a free relation is not limited to technology, it includes any comportment that relates to the essence of a being (meaning all modes of human comportment) If this relationship is free, it "opens our human existence to the essence of technology"

Human existence does not at the outset posses a free or unfree relation to technology. It is only through the question concerning technology itself that “we should like to prepare a free relationship to it”(1) Thus, The Question Concerning Technology hopes “to uncover the thing in question in its essence or truth”(6), for the relationship will be free “if it opens our human existence to the essence of technology”(1). As even quoted by the editor “According to Heidegger, it is necessary to find truth, for "only the true brings us into a free relationship with that which concerns us from its essence".

This truth is sought "by the way of the correct".[4]

Big lacuna what is the correct and how is it different from the true and how can you get from the correct to the true

Heidegger examines two definitions of technology. Firstly, he offers that "technology is a means to an end".[4] . . . these definitions, however, have to do with technology, not with the essence of technology.[6]

Heidegger does not offer nor propose any definitions he rather takes the all known that “Everyone knows the two statements that answer our question”

The relationship between humans and technology is dependent on the notion of instrumentality. Why and how? Διοτιμα (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


Διοτιμα has twice edited the lead of the article in a way that introduces incorrect grammar. See here and here. The second of those two edits was made despite the fact that I had already explained that the grammar of the change was incorrect. Since Διοτιμα saw fit to make the same incorrect change twice, I reproduce a relevant discussion from my talk page below. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"Question Concerning Technology lead Please see that the phrasing as you have written it contains an imprecise 'he.' The nominative subject of the previous clause is the work, not Heidegger. So your rendering has an improper pronoun case shift, shifting from accusative to nominative from the first to second clause. While no one will be confused as to who the 'he' is, it is conceptually imprecise and stylistically undesirable. See Strunk and White page 11 for more on this. So I am going to restore the previous two-sentence version, which avoids both of these problems. Please tell me if you see a specific problem with this rendering. CCS81 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Humorously, I note that my response above contains its own pronoun error, with a 'who' that should be a 'whom.' English grammar is brutally difficult! Anyway, I hope that you see my point about the wording and that we can find a rendering with which we are both happy. CCS81 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you for setting me straight, CCS81. I've taken your advice to heart, and made changes to a number of articles. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I'm glad to hear that helped. You are all over my watch list doing great work, so keep it up! Best, CCS81 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)"