| dc.description.abstract | Thomas Sheehan deems Heidegger’s analysis of modern technology untenable, because of its
commitment to a meta-history of the decline of Western society. Heidegger’s use to this highly
theoretical explanation for societies demise, brings Sheehan to the conclusion that there is nothing
valuable left in Heidegger’s notion of modern technology since everything that makes Heidegger’s
analysis unique lies in this meta-historical narrative. To what extend is the unique characteristic of
Heidegger’s analysis of modern technology committed to a meta-history of the decline of the Western
world? I propose three readings of Heidegger’s notion of modern technology: a practical reading, a
historical reading and a methodological reading. Every reading has a different presupposition about
what makes Heidegger’s analysis unique. Next, I evaluate whether the readings can on the one hand,
distinguish themselves from another philosophy of technology, for which Habermas’ technoscientific
rationality is used as a point of contrast. And on the other hand, if they are committed to a metahistory
of the decline of the Western world. The practical reading does not represent what makes
Heidegger’s approach unique, but is not committed to a meta-history. Next, the historical reading is
committed, although its commitment makes it possible to discern it from Habermas. Finally, the
methodological reading is not committed to a meta-history of the decline of Western society and at the
same time is discernable from Habermas. This last reading meets Sheehan’s challenge while being
able to reinterpret some of Heidegger’s key-notions. | |
