In Marcuse’s influential book entitled One Dimensional Man (Marcuse) Marcuse describes how capitalism creates social control, and calls it a “totally administered” society. He goes on to say the consumption of goods becomes the goal, and the actual need or satisfaction and ignored. Marcuse identified this as “pattern of one dimensional thought and behaviour in which ideas, aspirations, and objectives” this happens with the help of the mass media thought advertising, to sustain the cycle of production and consumption. Marcuse says technology is responsible for liberating us and thinks rationally. A difference of Heidegger is that he saw technology as a social process. Marcuse see’s obedience to the machine has become the only way for human beings to get along. “Invention is the mother of nersiserty” (social Marcuse), not the other way round. We need things because were programmed to. Your wants have been manufactured; you are bound to the system which programmes our desires and wants. We have lost sense of natural rationality. That has been replaced with things we want. This can be truth as people can be obsessed with cars. Freedom is not lost rather we fall in line with capitalism. He says if we get rid of technology where do we go? Thus we should abandon notion of vocational training as it is about being trained to be part of the system. (edditors) instead we should operate outside the system. This technological mind set we must step away. Make observational, then use modern technology in order to recast, reargue technology. We should use technology to release us of the burden of labour, cars we had endless leisure time the state will pay for it. Marcuse does not say we should get rid of it; instead make use of it, as it will free us from our burdens of labour. Allow us to recover the rationality; we will be its master. That is the revolution taking the means you need to take machines out of private ownership, state ownership anti fashionist. Marcuse regards the epochal structure of technological rationality as changeable. (Freenburg) in his book (One Dimensional Man 1964) Marcuse writes that he believes the answer is in creating a new type of technology, one that would put us in harmony with nature. An example of this is early twentieth century avant-garde film? Such as Un Chin A as reason and imagination is mixed and integrates human beings with their environment. He focused his work on the Marxist theory of capitalist, so in Marcuse’s book (Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, pp419) he talks of scientific discoveries and inventions being put to one side if they interrupt the profitable markets. An example of this is he scientist he discovered how wee could be in place of petrol. He also says “everything cooperates to turn human instincts, desires and thoughts into channels that feed the apparatus” (Marcuse)
Both Heidegger and Marcuse members of the Frankfurt school, which as based on social most thinking. There are some remarkable parallels between Heidegger’s teachings on technology and Marcuse’s. Like Heidegger he sees art as truth. “We are trapped and blinded by a mode of thought” (Heidegger) coincides with Marcuse’s thoughts how modern men are blinded and signs don’t allow us to think for our self’s. Marcuse is champion technology for liberation, Marcuse talks of mind set, the way different people share common ways of doing thingsMarcuse shared ideas of rational and mind set. Marcus received his philosophical education from Heidegger, so not drought would share his views on the anti-technological emotions that Heidegger did (Bubner pp 170) they both believe rationality is transformed, thus we conform to the system. This leads to fashionism. Wanting not needing makes humans’ think of themselves, this according to Heidegger leads to being. Technology is enslaving us. Believes that it is in art, an original unity of man nature. Both believe that it has been lost in the cause of history. Both agree we should not take nature for grated. Both provide critiques of technology. In his book (Some Social Implications of Modern Technology) Marcuse gives an example of the construction of cars. He goes on to say that they do not allow freedom, rather road signs make us passive, as we subordinate ourselves to follow them. He says “perhaps for the better” he would agree with Heidegger that the machine age puts us into rhythm. He also says that we have lost are ability to travel as free auto mobiles this leads to fashionism. (Marcuse) putting machine before nature “the average man hardly cares for any living being with the intensity and persistence he shows for his automobile”. (Marcuse 440) he goes onto say that the machine becomes like a human being.
Marcuse in his book The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics (Marcuse) describes art as reflecting reality and describes the process as putting realistic subject matter in artistic form as sublimation.
Marcuse talks of an avant garde move well (Rutsky), talks of “High tech is, in fact, often presented as a kind of avant-grage movement.” Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari & retrain. We can get out of the mind set Through retraining ourselves from technology Says we can reject the mind set and return to nature. The retain in relation to music key element. To add Rutsky describes technology as a mutation (Rutsky) he says you can not have post modernity with out technology. Rutsky goes against Heidegger by saying commencement of technology has changed in an age of high technology. Rutsky said it’s a good thing in his article High Techne, he talks of computers and how you can create your own music or film (production) this brings as back to the Greek ideal of craftsmanship. Rutsky said it is not lost but described in modern times. Rusky says it’s already happing there has been a shift from modern to post modern technology. and calls it a high tech age, Laclau & Moufte
Work like music different political periods unified outside agencies, world works to a sense of timing, sometimes there’s an imbalance in harmony periods when physical manifestations e.g computers new medias ect as they were marketed develop something was not right (1970s/1980s) focault says its about words and language, and that we are moving into a machine world and in doing so we are also equally moving into a capitalist society. Focault supports Marcuse in that it is more about us wanting then needing. Radio four documentary suggests there’s a relationship between science, state and the royal family, and the way technology gets introduced to us. In the programme visions of the future (BB4) “By 2020 intelligence will be everywhere” evolutionally leap that will challenge the human condition. Computer mimic the way the human brain works. Building of Roberts Asimo, like Frankenstein, this raises the question will we lose our sense of being human. Technology is a creative thing, 1980s a design counts as a reconstruction, Rutsky has rediscovered what Heidegger thought has been missing. Technology has meaning, it is about representation. Rutsky says it’s a move away from preduction to reproduction. Foucault (Foucault the Linguistic turn) what things mean and represent technology is not about the means to the end. Rutsky says technology has brought about are liberation. (The satellite story) documentary which explored the impact of modern technology, and which meant we could have live broadcasting, it also showed how we could watch other parts of the world at the same time, which made the world seem smaller.
By this same reasoning, it follows that the discourse of technology - the ways in which it is used - is also a social construct, a product of the same social cultural context. It is important to note that Rutsky distinguishes between good and bad technology, and describes the bad technology as “uncanny functionality” as war killings as they have been instrumentalized to an unprecedented degree. (Rutsky)
While Heidegger said it’s the end of technology and that we have allowed enframing to take over. 1994 technology the new media environment changes came about we leave in a media age media is everything. This takes us back to Heidegger. On our way to distraction unless we get to grips with the essence.
2003 New York blackout caused cauos. Roads traffic lights lifts, it was a lack of cilivasaton, but did it bring people closer together: (interview) so we as a nation are not ready to live without technology
People and shared common ideas. How it works
How did these ideas change, how media agencies give the same message.
Gives the cause and effects of modern technology (use contemporary ideas, news magazines)
Other philosophers
Harvey style of referencing (Heidegger: 22)
Discuss what happens in the passage and why it is significant to the work as a whole.
the ideas expressed.
Both critics point to the importance
It acknowledges
Often the paradox is such, then that
On the other hand the article seeks to engage the problem of . In her "Cyborg Manifesto" Donna Haraway explains what this might entail: "Taking responsibility for the social relations of science and technology means refusing an anti-science metaphysics, a demonology of technology, and so means embracing the skilful task of reconstructing the boundaries of daily life, in partial connection with others, in communication with all our parts" (181, emphasis mine). In support of Heidegger. The internet, new post modern writers, critics of Heidegger say you can not torch or see it so why ponder about the essence of technology. The ideas of Heidegger are relevant today. Heidegger is right in saying technology enframs us but wrong to say we should return to nature. (Freenburg) argues that technology is not neutral, and that using it involves taking a valuative stance. The films like extentez technology becomes one with the human race. Habermas uses the phase “fraternal relation to nature” to express Marcuse’s observation on technology.
No one can deny that our society is immersed in technology, therefore we must try to understand technology and our relation to it or else we become ignorant captives of it, blind to the bondage that defines our daily activities. With the increasing incorporation of computers and technology into every aspect of our lives, we need to comprehend that a surrounding is taking place. Technology is more than just our use of gadgets and tools to make common tasks easier, it is an understanding of the world as being apprehendable. As we are surrounded by technology, we become wrapped in its apprehension of both ourselves and our surroundings. All to simple we can not be either or
(Wrathall and Malpas) conclude on their chapter Heidegger, Technology, and the problem of spatiality in Being and Time, that “technology is a mode of disclosedness” it is not wrong but there is a flaw, as he says there’s no way out of the mind set. Freenburg suggest that both Heidegger and Marcus theory’s are not convincing but it
brings into focus the need for us to limit our use of it. (freenburg) he goes on to say “they are too indiscriminate in their condemnation of technology to guide efforts to reform it. The critique of technology as such usually ends in retreat from the technical sphere into art, religion, or nature.”
Neither or “sometimes technology is overextended, sometimes it is politically biased, sometimes it is both” (Freeburg) it is that times are changing Rutsky talks how it is the modernist aspiration to make art both practical and functional. Thus Technologize art. (Rutsky)
3000 WORDS
FILMOGRAPHY
Un Chin A
Extenz
BIBLIOGRAPHY
John Macquarrie, Markers of the contemporary theology Martin Heidegger, Pub: Lutterworth Press,1968
Walter Biemel, Martin Heidegger an illustrated study, Pub: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1977
Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning technology, 1953
Walter Biemel, Martin Heidegger an illustrated study, Pub: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1977
Alan Singer n Allen Dunn, Literary Aesthetics, Pub: Blackwell, 2000 pp 49
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
Martin Heidegger, The Thing in poetry language thought, 165
Mark wrathall, Heidegger, authenticity, and modernity, pub: The MIT Press 2000
Martin Heidegger, the question concerning technology, 27
Alan Singer n Allen Dunn, Literary Aesthetics, Pub: Blackwell, 2000
Translated by Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly, Martin Heidegger Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning) Pub: Indiana University Press, 1999
Martin Heidegger, the Question Concerning technology
Martin Heidegger, the Question Concering technology
Herbert Marcuse One dimensional Man
Herbert Marcuse, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology,
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
Marcuse, One Dimensional Man 1964
Herbert Marcuse, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, pp419
Herbert Marcuse, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, pp 420
Martin Heidegger, the Question Concering technology,
Rudiger Bubner, Mordern German Philosophy, Pub:Cambridge University Press, 1981
Herbert Marcuse, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, pp419
Herbert Marcuse, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, pp419
Herbert Marcuse, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, pp420
Herbert Marcuse, The Aesthetic Dimension: Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics, Boston: Beacon Press, 1978, PP 6-11, 16-18
R.L Rutsky, High Techne Art and Technology from the Machine Aesthetic to the Posthuman pp. 5
R.L Rutsky, High Techne Art and Technology from the Machine Aesthetic to the Posthuman
2/12/2007 Aired 21:00 The Satellite Story
R.L Rutsky, High Techne Art and Technology from the Machine Aesthetic to the Posthuman pp.3
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
Mark wrathall, Heidegger, authenticity, and modernity, pub: The MIT Press 2000
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
[“Marcuse or habermas: To critiques of technology, ” Inquiry 39, 1996, pp.45-70.]
R.L Rutsky, High Techne Art and Technology from the Machine Aesthetic to the Posthuman pp 9