Finding care through Filipino perspective and Heideggerian environmental thinking
Resty Ruel Ventura Borjal
Central Luzon State University, Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
e-mail: restyvborjal@clsu.edu.ph
AGATHOS, Volume 15, Issue 2 (29): 73-84, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.13937843
© www.agathos-international-review.com CC BY NC 2024
Abstract: Care is a vital context of human experience and is essential to a life of thinking that promotes the restoration of nature amidst the advent of technological challenges. The environmental crisis is more than just a mere disruption and human intervention in the natural environment. The absence of care as a shepherd implies humanity’s negligence in granting technological structures that displace all other human values. This paper reflects on the interconnectedness of the Filipino perspective and Heideggerian environmental thinking and aims to demonstrate our fitting place with the world and not as lords and masters of the earth. This work explores the effects of environmental degradation and strives for an attunement of human existence that promotes environmental concern. It discloses the need to revisit the path of meditative thinking to live environmentally and to realize the significance of nature as home. Finally, this paper argues for the relevance of continually asking the question of the Filipino worldview concerning his relationship with nature.
Keywords: care, environment, Filipino perspective, Heidegger, meditative thinking, technology
Introduction
This paper explores the crucial landscape of care amid of environmental key issues and attempts a preparatory reflection as I unravel the hopes of how Filipino perspectives and Heideggerian environmental thinking reveal involvement in finding our appropriate relationship with the world. My aim is not only to suggest possible ways of linking Filipino thought with environmental issues by seeking critical engagement about emerging technological concerns but also to remind ourselves of the ways of learning about ourselves and the world within which the Filipino perspective is located. The question ‘whether a Filipino perspective about care?’ entails a logical assumption that there is a Filipino perspective about care. Is there a Filipino perspective on care? Fundamentally, my main contention is the quest for the meaning of the existence of Filipinos doing philosophy which could prepare a possible escape from a technological, calculative and manipulated view about nature, which also confined human beings, or could it lead us to a relentless drive for objectification and manipulation.
Heidegger’s critique of technology concerns humanity’s failure in understanding the essence of technology. Technological thinking controls and endangers humanity, leading to calamity. Heidegger’s assertion towards thinking can be seen as a remedy to ecological crisis. In Heidegger’s Building, Dwelling, Thinking: In Basic Writings (1993, 304), he stressed that our indispensable relation to being defines us as ‘shepherds of being’, rather than being the lords and masters. But, if we examined carefully what was happening, emerging technologies led us to interpret ourselves not as ‘shepherds of being’ but otherwise which have carried us into the age of environmental crisis. According to Heidegger (1993, 325), enframing is how Being manifests itself in the age of technology. Enframing allows human beings to reveal reality only as a standing reserve / Bestand (Heidegger 1993, 322); it limits one’s way of thinking to make reality calculable and manipulate the world.
Scientific and technological thinking have now ‘enframed’ the natural world by transforming it into a mere object readily available for domination, consumption, and exploitation. Thus, the natural world has become a ‘standing reserve’ readily available for humanity’s technical manipulation. Nature’s furthering is aimed toward “driving on to the maximum yield at the minimum expense” (Heidegger 1977, 15). One’s way of thinking, talking, and acting were consigned into the world of objectification and control. Humanity became what Heidegger calls ‘a standing reserve’. Humanity’s technological thinking causes a lot of cases of mismanagement and lack of proper control measures on the use of technology, thus resulting in an inauthentic human being in the world. Thus, for Heidegger, the only suitable response is “to pit meditative thinking decisively against merely calculative thinking” (Heidegger 1966, 53).
In Building Dwelling Thinking (1975), Heidegger narrates, “man dwells in that he builds… man is capable of such building only if he already builds in the sense of poetic taking measure” (Heidegger 1975, 227). He declares that building is not just for construction and creation. It is through building that humanity attains dwelling. For Heidegger, etymologically speaking, the words ‘building’ and ‘dwelling’ were coined from the German term bauen, which conveys that we have to value, safeguard, protect, and care for, “specifically to till the soil and cultivate the vine” (Ibid, 147). Dwelling may also means safeguarding, it characterizes an ability to nurture and care for other beings. In this way, “mortals dwell in that they save the earth…to save really means to set something free into its own presencing…saving the earth does not master the earth and subjugate it” (Ibid, 150).
Methodology
This paper employs an interpretive method to identify significant insights about the concern that is being examined based from the observations of the writer. Findings that are related to the literature cited in the paper as it pursues to resolve questions regarding the Filipino perspective and the condition of man and nature in today’s technological age. This study argues in favor of the need to re-awaken one’s proper disposition with technology into an ethics of care that could lead to a way out from the existential crisis, which also enriches both the person and the environment. This study used descriptive and expository methods in presenting and describing Heidegger’s concepts about technology, meditative thinking, and authentic and inauthentic existence. This study also employed critical analysis in evaluating Filipino behaviors, and practices, and to find the concept of care in the light of Heidegger’s philosophy.
The technological enframing
Heidegger illustrates that while the sciences have tried to separate themselves from philosophy in order to reach their autonomy, their advancement however, has led to the completion of philosophy, it is in the sciences that philosophy becomes “the technology by which [man] establishes himself in the world,” a kind of technology that Heidegger describes as enframing. Heidegger concludes that “the end of philosophy proves to be the triumph of the manipulable arrangement of a scientific-technological world” and declares this as “the beginning of the world civilization based upon Western European thinking” (Heidegger 1972, 57-59). Heidegger is not against science and technology, rather, he is in contrast to all forms of manipulation that subdue nature. He says: “Let beings be” (Heidegger 1996, 30), for him, environmental distress is caused by technological understanding of beings. The maxim “To the things themselves!”—which he beautifully explains as “to let what shows itself be seen from itself, just as it shows itself from itself” (Ibid.).
Heidegger reiterates that we should not destroy nature, rather, we should take care of it. His ethics is identical to virtue ethics, for it features certain traits essential to the good life. His concept about dwelling towards sparring and preserving, is close to the perspective of preserving from something, i.e., to be safeguarded and to be cared for. We are called on to safeguard nature. We are not only shepherds of nature, we are also the guardians of truth. Guarding and shepherding are behaviors proper to human dwelling, and they are something of which human beings are capable. Thus, to spare and preserve is to regard nature in our care. We are tasked to be vigilant, to be watchful, and to respond to the appeal of calculative thinking. Calculative thinking has directed human beings to transform themselves into being the lords and masters of nature rather than as the ‘shepherds of being’, and this has brought us into the age of environmental crisis.
Enframing sets upon us, it does not only challenge us but it also orders everything into calculative thinking which commands and directs human beings into technical-calculative creature. It hides in this technical-calculative creature as it reduces one’s actions into standing-reserve. It also diminishes its purpose and possibility, i.e., storing of resources. When enframing controls its way, one no longer encounters oneself in his essence, one fails to see and hear oneself as the speaker to and thus “can never encounter only himself” (Heidegger 1977a, 27). It compromises humanity and it shows no other way of revealing the world, since it is a challenging one, thus from where Enframing prospers, the supreme danger also appears.
On meditative thinking
The basis for Heideggerian ethics is meditative thinking for it shows one’s engagement in the world. Meditative thinking leads the way toward a meaningful relationship with other beings. It also keeps the essence of truth and protects nature in general. One needs to evade this technological thinking since it confronts and subdues nature, thus leading to an environmental concern.
Heidegger’s call for a meditative attunement with the world allows a way towards proper care for nature. He suggests a kind attitude towards nature, not of domination and exploitation for these characterize an assault on nature, but of humility and stewardship of seeing the earth as what it is, thus taking care of it. Allowing nature as what it is could mean preserving and safeguarding. This caring outlook brings the essence of nature into things and also grants things themselves free from any form of the challenging character of technological outlook.
Humanity’s drive for mastery characterizes today’ technological period an displaces us in our fitting dwelling place. In Heidegger’s Building Dwelling Thinking (1975), he discusses that the heart of dwelling can only be realized through our important meeting with different beings. We are tasked to safeguard, protect, and care for those beings. Consequently, Filipino’s caring attitude leads to the preservation of nature, it does not challenge nature, rather, it avoids ways leading to a disturbed, bothered, and restless environment. In Building Dwelling Thinking (1975, 150), for Heidegger the word bauen denotes preservation. When one saves the earth, it means “to rescue it from ruin, to free it into its own essence, and to bring it under our care”. Thus, to save the world means we need to revitalize it. The mechanical and calculative thinking of technology have challenged nature which ultimately destroy her. To preserve means to save the earth. If we allow beings to themselves and give their independence and self-standing, then, nature will appear into our awareness and show herself as a real worry for human beings.
For Heidegger, meditative thinking shows an important ground for our meaningful relationship with nature in general. It appeals us to prevent the exploitative and challenging revealing of things and nature in as a whole. Through this, it allows beings and the rest of nature to disclose themselves freely rather than the dictates of calculative thinking that governs in the age of modern technology. Meditative thinking translates towards a meaningful relation with the beings and nature that we encounter and thereby becomes a significant part of our lives. Thus, in accepting nature as an essential part of us, an authentic environmental concern also manifests.
Meditative thinking is the saving power that could help us from the many dangers of technology for it leads us a way out from enframing as a replacement to the calculative thinking of modern science. It allows us to have a better engagement with the world and helps us to recover from the dangers of enframing, thus, allowing nature to become significant for us beyond the concern science and technology. Inauthentic existence manipulates nature and ourselves by holding sway to the challenging character of a theoretical and calculative mindset.
Filipino perspective of care
The perspective about care is personal since one’s search for the meaning of one’s existence is neither collective nor universal. Care for some could mean an enhancement to a culture, while for others it could be a people’s way of life with emphasis to linang, usually referring to a land that has been cleared to prepare for it its sowing (Almario 2010, 167, 702). If one listens to the words that nature is telling, one could realize what really worried him, i.e., to be constantly faithful to what is really occuring and bring into public a particular concern. Humanity’s care for others kapwa acknowledges our connection with others and for nature has been considered as one of the emerging concerns in the scientific discourse, not only from the ethical aspect of environmental viewpoint but also in terms of re-awakening people's environmental awareness. Such an attitude towards nature tends to care more for the environment. In general, it fosters environmental concerns to become much more central in public discussion, since much of the discussions of these issues are often limited to scientific and economic concern.
Filipino culture of linang could generate a better look into our actions and to think meaningfully beyond the technological framework. Filipinos, then could develop a better disposition towards this world- humanity’s only home which is undeniably, an essential part of human existence. Quito (2008) reminds us that we need self-examination to know who we are. Failure to observe this reminder results in an inauthentic existence. This kind of existence occurs when one’s action does not worry about any responsibility, neglects to exercise freedom, and just follows as what the crowd dictates. The worst of it is that when one fails to realize one’s own action and has no understanding of it.
Filipinos have to re-awaken the sense of care for nature, we need not to take for granted our behaviors and practices. Failure to understand our behavior and practices leads us in inauthentic existence and the danger of losing our relationship with others. Inauthentic existence happens when we live by the dictates and influence of others or more specifically by doing what the ‘they’ said. We exist without autonomy and control of ourselves. We follow the dictates of calculative thinking on how and what we should do. We fall into a kind of existence wherein one loses his own identity. In inauthenticity, a sense of responsibility, decision making, and uniqueness are lost, while in authenticity, one understands freedom and applies it. We have to re-evaluate our daily activities behavior and practices so as not to be ‘enframed’ by the calculative thinking of technology which has become enormously dominated and uncontrollable.
A similar point may be inferred when we neglect to care. The absence of care develops into negative Filipino behaviors, and practices which might result in no self-realization, a lack of understanding of what really matters, and a failure to take responsibility. The same goes with Heidegger’s concept of inauthentic existence where Dasein failed to realize and listen to his own self, allowing the ‘they’ to take control of one’s life, and taking no responsibilities for his actions. On the other hand, authentic existence requires a great command and control over oneself, one needs to listen to the call and return to a kind of thinking (meditative) and, take an action free from the calling of calculative and technological apparatuses. One can only hear and listen to the call of reflective thinking when one thinks meditatively. One can also hear and listen to the call of nature when one acts carefully.
Care as shepherds of Being
Heidegger declares that man is the shepherd of Being. He says, that man is ‘thrown’ from Being itself into the truth of Being so that he might “guard the truth of Being, in order that beings might appear in the light of Being as the beings they are.” (Heidegger 1993, 334-335) To be a guardian of truth is, for Heidegger, to let things show in the light of being; to allow things to be themselves to let them free from any form of challenging forth; thus, to spare and preserve is to regard nature in our care.
Guardianship means, is to be vigilant, to be watchful for the coming of destiny of Being, a vigilance that issues from a long and ever-renewed thoughtful deliberateness, which heeds the directive that lies in the manner in which Being makes its appeal. In the destiny of Being, there is never a mere sequence of things one after another: now frame, then world and thing; rather, there is always a passing by and simultaneity of the early and late (Heidegger 1971, 184).
Heidegger’s view of nature as our dwelling place contributes to a positive ecological message, particularly his tone about humanity as a shepherd who cares for nature and not as an exploiter who masters and manipulates it. Keeping in mind that our role as shepherds is to be cautious so as not to conceive ourselves as masters or lords but as guardians. For Heidegger, bauen also conveys that we have to value, safeguard, protect, and care for, “specifically to till the soil and cultivate the vine” (Heidegger 1975, 147). Therefore, dwelling is safeguarding, for it nurtures and cares nature in general. In this manner, “mortals dwell in that they save the earth…to save really means to set something free into its own presencing…saving the earth does not master the earth and subjugate it” (Ibid, 150).
Filipinos with a develop culture and a way of life search for their noble aspiration to become more human with their values such as justice, prudence, benevolence, truth, love, beauty, and friendship. Armed with these values, these serve as their compass in the midst of ‘the dangers’ of enframing. Heidegger (1977b, 23) says, “The essence of modern technology shows itself in what we call Enframing”. He further emphasizes that through this enframing, human beings failed to encounter themselves and their essence in today’s technological era. We as human beings lose our authenticity. We cannot be ourselves because of the predominance of technical and calculative reasoning. Enframing hides the truth: as he says, “Enframing blocks the shining-forth and holding sway of truth” (Ibid, 28). Thus, Heidegger suggests that through questioning, a free relationship to technology is possible, since questioning helps us transform a path of thinking by experiencing a modified relationship with other beings. If one is attuned, one can also experience a shift in attitude characterized by wonder and carefulness.
Modern technology has transformed humanity as the lords and masters of nature. Through meditative thinking, a way is possible for the saving power that could redeem humankind, for it allows us to cultivate our free relation to technology, releasement toward things, and openness to the mystery. The problem with technological thinking destroys other’s life, we become mastered and disconnected components and brings ourselves as lords of the earth, thus falling into an inauthentic existence. It displaces all other human values and allows only one system of rationality. When one became ‘enframed’, one failed to reflect, and care was lost and we do not worry at all. As Marcuse (1964b) asserts, technological rationality has led to a one-dimensional society.
Since reality, identity, and freedom lose their natural potency, Marcuse spoke of one-dimensional reality, behaviour, or thinking. The fear or challenge is that “Everything cooperates to turn human instincts, desires and thoughts into channels that feed the apparatus… The relationships among men are increasingly mediated by the machine process” (Marcuse 1941, 420).
In today’s modern age, we are trapped in what Heidegger calls Enframing (Gestell). Enframing for Heidegger is the essence of technology, it represents beings as standing reserves, it covers up the truth and it limits one’s way of thinking. It also limits the possible truths and worst loses our authenticity because of the predominance of technical and calculative reasoning. For Heidegger, we must gain intelligibility as the essence of thinking. Intelligibility leads us into an open relationship with beings and to the mystery of nature. Filipino views tend to always live by the influence and dictate of others. Technological apparatuses have controlled humanity’s thinking. Control and manipulation displace care. When one is consumed by technology, one neglects to think and reflect on why we do such behavior or perform a certain action. Thus, to find care is to re-awaken our values and return to ourselves to regain our autonomy. If we understand care and are aware of it, then we can avoid committing again those behaviors, and practices that lead to inauthenticity. One becomes inauthentic because of our “forgetfulness” and “just drift along with the latest trends” (Guignon 1993, 234). Inauthenticity results when one just follows what the ‘they’ said without looking back to its origin.
Care as antidote to ‘equipmental’ attitude
Heidegger claimed that the characterizing feature of modern life was the ‘forgetting of Being’. He has expressed his concern to understand and critically reflect on the increased technological transformation. Modern people think about humanity and nature in general as things to be used and thus, to be consumed as efficiently as possible. Technology as a whole dominates and challenges the rest of nature. Heidegger articulates that, “everything is taken as a standing-reserve to be manipulated and formed that ultimately causes much harm regardless of its benefits” (Heidegger 1977b, 16-17). He has been bothered by calculative thinking, for it is progressively being espoused unreflectively in the modern and technological age, which causes for the concealing of our authentic nature and the corruption of our reflective attitude towards the way of revealing which holds in modern technology. Technological intervention and modernized technologies make manifest a dominant order that manipulates people which has brought the individual into the era of existential challenges. Meditative thinking ss a way out from scientific, calculative, and power-seeking interests of modern technology as the possible escape from the dangers of calculative thinking. Negative Filipino behaviors and practices were very similar to Heidegger’s concept of Dasein’s inauthentic existence. We should aim to grasp our ‘our-selves’ and individual interests and then rise above it to a more universal perspective, and not to surrender to a socialized and superficial mode of being (‘they-self’), this Heideggerian journey leads us away from inauthenticity to authenticity.
The earlier Heidegger of Being and Time (1962) pursues to retrieve the ignored question of the meaning of being, i.e., “what it means for something to be?” We have disregarded this question because we prefer to think of what it is to be. We have forgotten to live and we lost to experience the mystery of existence, thus, we cannot be ourselves because of the predominance of technical and calculative reasoning. To care is to appreciate, and respond appropriately to the things that we encounter, it avoids how we look at nature through the narrow lenses of our own interests. We treat others as means and not as ends. This kind of attitude to nature is dominant in the natural science. Natural science treats nature as a set of mere objects. Most of the time, we treat people as what Heidegger terms ‘equipment’ as if they were tools and instruments, rather than the beings as they are.
Thus, this ‘equipmental’ attitude toward nature constitutes an inherent threat to the self-standing of nature as it awaits technology’s challenging use, characterized by domination. This prevents nature from expressing her very own self and structure, thus, it degrades nature. Throughout our quest, can we really ultimately feel a new kind of ‘care’ for the rest of nature that lies beyond ourselves? Whatever possible term for such an endeavor, the most important qualification is that Filipinos meditatively distinguish and create their own discourse as persons who assert the relevance of continually discussing the question concerning care for nature.
Conclusion
This paper tried to establish the claim that Filipinos have a fundamental concern for others. Critical in today’s age is the role of technology in our attitude towards nature and care for the environment. Thus, a return to a kind of thinking (meditatively) is necessary to look more closely into re-awakening Filipino perspectives on caring. There is a need to revive these caring values and nurture them to bring them into the public sphere. One has to redeem oneself from the dangers of technological thinking. Similarly, Heidegger’s concept of Dasein underlines the significance of realizing our ethical relation with others and to the natural world. Both the Filipino perspective and Heidegger's environmental thinking encourage us to reflect on our fitting relationship with the rest of nature. It is through the ethics of care, that to leads to an escape from the calculative thinking. Thus, this paper endorses meditative thinking as an important component to ‘equipmental’ attitude and technological reform toward a deeper understanding of our existence.
Filipino perspective about care and Heideggerian environmental thinking reveal a similar concern for the environment and an appreciation of the interrelatedness of all beings. There is a need to foster meditative thinking which promotes the value of care in restoring nature and as an alternative to technological rationality. Both perspectives feature the vision of living within a flourishing nature and offer significant questions toward the development of a better definition of our appropriate place in the natural world.
References:
Almario, Virgilio S. 2010. UP Diksiyonaryong Filipino: Binagong Edisyon. Edited by Virgilio S. Almario. Wikang Filipino-Diliman and Anvil Publishing Inc.
Guignon, Charles B. 1993. Authenticity, Moral Values, and Psychotherapy, in Cambridge Companion to Heidegger. Edited by Charles B. Guignon. Cambridge University Press.
Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper Perennial.
Heidegger, Martin. 1966. Memorial Address in Discourse on Thinking: A Translation of Gelassenheit. Translated by John M. Anderson and E. Hans Freund. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Heidegger, Martin. 1971. The Thing. In Poetry, Language, Thought. Translated by Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, Martin. 1972. “The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking”. In On Time and Being. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Heidegger, Martin. 1975. Building Dwelling Thinking. In Poetry, Language, Thought. Edited by Jesse Glenn Gray. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Heidegger, Martin. 1977a. The Question Concerning Technology. In In Basic Writings: From Being and Time (1927) to the Task of Thinking (1964). Edited by David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, Martin. 1977b. The Question Concerning Technology. In The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Translated by William Lovitt. New York / London: Garland Publishing.
Heidegger, Martin. 1993. Building, Dwelling, Thinking. In Basic Writings. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Heidegger, Martin. 1996. Being and Time. Translated by Joan Stambaugh. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1941. Some Social Implications of Modern Technology. Studies in Philosophy and SocialScience, 9 (3): 414-439.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-Dimensional Man. With a new introduction by D. Kellner. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Quito, Emerita S. 2008. The Ambivalence of Filipino Traits and Values. http://www.thefilipinomind.com/2008/11/ambivalence-of-filipinotraits-and.html [accessed: 05.08.2023].