From Heidegger's perspective, Nietzsche's attempted decentering of subjectivity on the basis of its earlier rootedness in life itself does not overcome the subject but amounts to merely an inversion which remains complicit with the early modern concept of the subjectum. This recourse to the living merely "replaces the cogito by a vivo" which in no way leads beyond the subjectum but instead brings modernity to its final exhaustive configuration. Rather than drawing into question the ultimacy of life as an ontological ground, Nietzsche reiterates the self-conservation of the subject which, despite its vital transcendence, is merely a "going beyond oneself in order to come all the more back to oneself and only to oneself."
The question then for those in the tech sector, and the problem concerning technology, is then how does one ensure that one is creating without determining? How does one let the world presence itself through modern technology, rather than determining how and for what it appears? The problem for most human beings concerns how to authentically appropriate technology such that it does not extend its technologization into areas that dehumanize: not all technologization is necessarily bad, a hammer and a pencil both technologize the user every bit as much as a computer keyboard does.
Heidegger writes in Being and Time that the “call ‘says’ nothing which might be talked about,” and which “gives no information about events,” much how Kafka is silent about Gregor’s devolving mechanism, and which “points forward to Dasein’s potentiality-for-Being,” that is, being another species below even what the racists refer to as the lowest race, “and it does this as a call which comes from [the] uncanniness” of “thrown individualization”. Is this not Gregor’s real instantiation of the racial, thrown into being a cockroach, in his uncomfortable, uncanny carapice?
[T]he substance of Sloterdijk’s critique of Heidegger is that Heidegger, in eschewing the cosmopolitan city for the village, never fully understood how humanity expands. Instead, Heidegger sought to impede modern growth by insisting on a philosophy of anti-expansion, one in which, according to Sloterdijk in the later works of Heidegger, becomes a parochial return to the Catholic-Augustinian acceptance of the human as a deeply flawed being incapable of overcoming this fall except through some metaphysical/spiritual intercession. Heidegger sought to ground the person in Ursprunglichkeit (origin), but for Sloterdijk this was a false consciousness: The human is anthropotechnic by nature, one whose growth is dependent on creating and recreating itself and its world through constant kinetic movement forward. In this instance, for Sloterdijk, the “The People” is a fiction, as this assumes, like Heidegger, that there is an essential essence which is what connects people together. But if we reject this Heideggerian Ursprunglichkeit for a more mobile ontology, we see that what connects people together is not essential ideology, but rather necessary technics of desire.
spent the whole course positing my own ethical system While other college students emptied kegs Information ethics, cyberethics — both since taken — Said: Maximize the information flow Toward a hypothetical end state in which the cosmos Consists entirely of our info And at the highest level possible, not only data But data about data dot dot dot Or life on top of life on top of life, et ceteraThe Ge-stell, it's hell, oh well.