1) Both Heidegger and Ellul believe that the world is the expression of and determined by a higher power.
a) For Heidegger this is Being. Being reveals itself in various modes and Enframing and the essence of which it is the consummation is the self-withholding of Being to man.
b) For Ellul, this is God. God is transcendent, meaning he is not in Being, but beyond it. Nevertheless he is all powerful and therefore determines the destiny of the world. The world is “fallen” and is in disharmony, and the truth of God comes in the form of revelation, of the illuminating condescension of God.
2) Both Heidegger and Ellul believe in the inherent dialectical flux of history.
a) For Heidegger, every destining of revealing sends being on its way towards arrival in some new destining.
b) For Ellul, something much like the Hegelian dialectic of history is the modus operandi of historical change.
3) Bother Heidegger and Ellul believe that the essence of the modern age is technological and that technology – or what it signifies – is the determining factor of the modern world.
a) For Heidegger, technology signifies the transformation of the real from what immediately appears visually, into representations of the subject, through the appearance of the subject as the only reliably true phenomena. This sets up nature as object, which is precisely that thing which, inasmuch as it is object, exists only as standing reserve for the usage of the subject. This results in the instrumental dominance of man over the earth.
b) For Ellul, the supremacy of efficiency naturally occurs from out of more primitive societies because of its inherent efficaciousness. Once established to a certain point, it takes on the quality of being a value unto itself. Once at this stage, it becomes autonomous and self-augmenting, and increasingly drives the rationalization of everything along the lines of efficiency, directs every institution toward that goal. Its ultimate course is the totalitarian ordering of the world.
4) Both Heidegger and Ellul are ultimately optimistic about the outcome of the modern age.
a) For Heidegger, the destining of being is dialectical. Enframing, upon thinking about it, appears to be the catalyst for its own change. There is at least cause for hope.
b) For Ellul, history is dialectical, and we have no example of a situation reaching an inherent state of crises without bringing about a change. Furthermore, God is in control and ultimately plans everything for good. He has promised the eventual coming into being kingdom of Heaven.
5) Both Heidegger and Ellul believe in a desirable and attainable state of healthy correspondence to the world in the midst of the technological milieu.
A) For Heidegger this is Dasein, or, that state of unity between thinking and doing called reflection, wherein man reverently and attentively safeguards the appearing of the real into appearance intact and lingers with it. Art and craft can accomplish this as much as thinking; in Dasein they are the same.
B) For Ellul this is Harmony, or, that state of being in a corresponding relationship to the environment wherein man can thrive, choose free of constraint, cooperate, and create.
6) Both Heidegger and Ellul propose a course of action to take in the context of the technological milieu aimed at bringing about the above mentioned state of healthy correspondence.
a) For Heidegger, this is reflection on the essence of technology such that what it is may come to light. Since what it is is, in a sense, an intellectual occlusion to the appearing of Being and in this an occlusion to its being an occlusion, this coming to light of its essence frees man to exist understand it, which means to be freed from it. Or at least to cultivate the appearing of its essence through thinking. The fulfillment of this reflection would be Dasein, in which state reflection is the mode of existence. In this mode of existence art and craft accomplish the revealing of being qua truth. Thus, at the same time as thinking, art and craft of a possible vessel of the appearing of the essence of technology and thus salvation from it.
b) For Ellul, this is the antithetical resistance to the technical milieu with the positation of the transcendent. This means first of all thinking of technology from out paradigm which understands it for the merely finite and temporary world that it is, and placing one’s stake in the transcendent God and the kingdom of Heaven. In doing this, Technique is demoted from the role of savior and can therefore be reoriented towards. This reorientation must entail the constant making secure of freedom in the context of the technical milieu because only in freedom can man choose to demote technique and accept the revelation of God. The revelation of God indicates that the world will be transformed (in all likelihood from out of the dialectical clash between Technique and the transcendent) into the kingdom of heaven. It also entails the other knowledge of God required to fulfill his role for Christians in bringing the kingdom about. Thus the secure the freedom to respond to revelation is to secure the means of bringing about the kingdom of heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment