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?

Page 1 of 10
Are all the benefits from the fruits of progress in this discipline fulfill the main aim of
every human being in the society?

SELECTED VIEWS ON TECHNOLOGY

It has been said that there are many views or ways as 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 technicians, 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.

Page 2 of 10
The extreme version of this philosophy is technocratism which holds technology as the
supreme authority on everything.

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,

Page 3 of 10
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”.

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
Ancient Windmill through 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,
Page 4 of 10

Modern Windmill
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. 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 are 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).”

Page 5 of 10
 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.

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.

Page 6 of 10
 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 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?

Page 7 of 10
 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?
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.

Page 8 of 10
 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

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

Page 9 of 10
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

Activity Time!

(For Category A and B). Short Film Review.

Watch the movie entitled “Akiro Kurosawa‟s Dreams: Village of the Watermills”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4mtPQ_THM&t=709s) and create a 1-2 min.
video explaining your ideas on the following questions below:

1. Which part of the film struck you most? Why?

2. Base on the film, discuss how technology reveals nature and the human person‟s role
in it.

Send your work to your respective STS Google Classrooms. Deadlines will be given by
your instructors.

Rubric for rating your work on Video

Subject
 Provides insight into topic (5 pts max.)
 Is discussed thoroughly (5 pts max.)
Subject Score _____ out of 10

Content
 Presents interesting information and/or reactions (5 pts max.)
 Language is used properly and effectively (5 pts max.)
 Student(s) behave professionally on camera (5 pts max.)
 Student(s) demonstrate thoughtful approach to subject (5 pts max.)
Content Score ______ out of 20

Technical Aspects
 Camera is stable, smooth movements and pans (5 pts max.)
 Subject is lit and clearly visible (5 pts max.)
 Sound is clear and understandable (5 pts max.)
 Project was completed in a timely manner (5 pts max.)
Technical aspects Score ______ out of 20

Total Score: ______ out of 50

Page 10 of 10