I previously wrote an old post about the place of the hand in the place of our existence in the world, and it was titled “The hand from the tool to the sign.” What I mean by that is to clarify its problematic and ponder its meanings and how to arrange its existence in the world from Aristotle to Derrida (in his famous book marked “Heidegger’s Hand .. Heidegger’s Ear”).
And the situation is that I remembered it again when I saw an exciting news recently, which is Sweden’s decision to return to paper textbooks after the country witnessed a terrible drop in the level of students when they replaced writing by hand by “clicking” with an electronic machine. Heidegger had a famous text in the forties of the last century called “Parmenides” in which he warns against the consequences of being drawn into the complexities of modern technology, especially in the matter of the hand, because this will go beyond simply clicking on the screen to change our concept of the world as a whole in which we live.
Technology does not look at our hands except as a biological tool that nature provided us with (which is the perception that prevailed from Aristotle to Descartes and modern metaphysics through Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi), so it does not cease to invent new alternative mechanisms for it (such as the mouse in the computer) that reproduces its style while it transcends the level of nature (where the physical organs) to the sign and sign phase.
The animal hand “grabs” and “grabs”, as it is a purely biological hand, while the human hand “transfers”: that is, it exercises a kind of existential transcendence over nature, because the world is not just material facts but rather symbols, signs and signs. But this transcendence is not Kantian in anything, it is not a transcendental transcendence that looks at the world from above, but rather it is a transcendence that preconceives its existence in the world.
This is a unique and graceful phenomenological graduation for the position of the hand. It is reported that Kant wrote a book called “How do we go about thinking?” And he raised the question of how do I know the directions if I am in a dark house? This is given that space--and time--is a tribal saying that encloses us as subjects, and it has no existence outside.
Heidegger's realization of it was that the place is not a priori and geometrical category, but rather is latent "in" the world, as its sides are revealed only when preoccupied with it for the first time by meeting others. The pattern of busy living in the company of others is the push of a button that lights up the world for us, and the geometric understanding of the place is nothing but the derivative sense.
That is why technology is always “shorter” than our hands in terms of its position and position, as if it were a material organ that does not have any special ontological or symbolic status.
#Essays
And the situation is that I remembered it again when I saw an exciting news recently, which is Sweden’s decision to return to paper textbooks after the country witnessed a terrible drop in the level of students when they replaced writing by hand by “clicking” with an electronic machine. Heidegger had a famous text in the forties of the last century called “Parmenides” in which he warns against the consequences of being drawn into the complexities of modern technology, especially in the matter of the hand, because this will go beyond simply clicking on the screen to change our concept of the world as a whole in which we live.
Technology does not look at our hands except as a biological tool that nature provided us with (which is the perception that prevailed from Aristotle to Descartes and modern metaphysics through Ibn Sina and Al-Farabi), so it does not cease to invent new alternative mechanisms for it (such as the mouse in the computer) that reproduces its style while it transcends the level of nature (where the physical organs) to the sign and sign phase.
The animal hand “grabs” and “grabs”, as it is a purely biological hand, while the human hand “transfers”: that is, it exercises a kind of existential transcendence over nature, because the world is not just material facts but rather symbols, signs and signs. But this transcendence is not Kantian in anything, it is not a transcendental transcendence that looks at the world from above, but rather it is a transcendence that preconceives its existence in the world.
This is a unique and graceful phenomenological graduation for the position of the hand. It is reported that Kant wrote a book called “How do we go about thinking?” And he raised the question of how do I know the directions if I am in a dark house? This is given that space--and time--is a tribal saying that encloses us as subjects, and it has no existence outside.
Heidegger's realization of it was that the place is not a priori and geometrical category, but rather is latent "in" the world, as its sides are revealed only when preoccupied with it for the first time by meeting others. The pattern of busy living in the company of others is the push of a button that lights up the world for us, and the geometric understanding of the place is nothing but the derivative sense.
That is why technology is always “shorter” than our hands in terms of its position and position, as if it were a material organ that does not have any special ontological or symbolic status.
#Essays