Graduate studies at Western
Inquiry 43 (4):445 – 450 (2000)
|Abstract||Iain Thomson's critique is persuasive on several points but not on the major issue, the relation of the ontological to the ontic in Heidegger's philosophy of technology. This reply attempts to show that these two dimensions of Heidegger's theory are closely related, at least in the technological domain, and not separate, as Thomson affirms. It is argued that Heidegger's evaluations of particular technologies, the flaws of which Thomson concedes, proceed from a flawed ontological conception.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Iain Thomson (2001). Heidegger on Ontological Education, Or: How We Become What We Are. Inquiry 44 (3):243 – 268.
Iain D. Thomson (2005). Heidegger on Ontotheology: Technology and the Politics of Education. Cambridge University Press.
Robert Keith Shaw (2010). The Violence in Learning. Analysis and Metaphysics 9:76-100.
Iain Thomson (2004). Heidegger's Perfectionist Philosophy of Educationin Being and Time. Continental Philosophy Review 37 (4):439-467.
Andrew Feenberg (2000). Constructivism and Technology Critique: Replies to Critics. Inquiry 43 (2):225 – 237.
Don Ihde (2010). Heidegger's Technologies: Postphenomenological Perspectives. Fordham University Press.
Iain Thomson (2000). From the Question Concerning Technology to the Quest for a Democratic Technology: Heidegger, Marcuse, Feenberg. Inquiry 43 (2):203 – 215.
Dana S. Belu & Andrew Feenberg (2010). Heidegger's Aporetic Ontology of Technology. Inquiry 53 (1):1-19.
Iain Thomson (2000). What's Wrong with Being a Technological Essentialist? A Response to Feenberg. Inquiry 43 (4):429 – 444.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads77 ( #12,811 of 739,315 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,315 )
How can I increase my downloads?