The dehumanizing Challenge of technique:
The technique is not "neutral" in relation to a certain culture (way of conceiving and valuing reality), and that we can use freely, without any kind of conditioning, some techniques instead of others, according to a previously marked objectives.
The technique has its own internal development demands, which requires certain cultural products that condition and shape the possibilities and the construction of our future.
So Many claim that it is dehumanizing.
The "dehumanizing" technique does not derive from "non-neutrality" unless it is considered that "everything is automatic" (without human freedom) in the technique, and that it is capable of becoming independent of its creator, Esclavizandole. But this does not correspond to reality, because man:
If you want and know how to use it, you can control your technological products, previously evaluating the consequences of "give birth".
Even If you see "complex" this domain, it's not "impossible".
You can always introduce new inventions "correctors" of the bad consequences gastos.
You can substitute some technologies for others.
It can cope with this challenge, not with the same technique, but with philosophypolitics.
It is false to say that we are inevitably walking towards a dehumanized society, where oppression is on the rise.
It is true that this is an alternative (and a reality), but not the only one, and also the above can be changed.
Today's suffering and human unhappiness is not predetermined, but a result of human incapacitate, stupidity, or wickedness. It is an "easy" resource to attribute this to "technological irrationality," and to conceive the world as "a valley of Tears."
Man is neither omnipotent nor impotent. Technological inventions have given "power" to man, and it is up to him to be "menacing" or "hopeful."
That The technique is a source of progress or regression, does not depend on the technical decision, but on the moral and political will of man ("The essence of technique, is not something technical" Heidegger). Analyzing the essence of that technique is a function of philosophy.
Philosophical view of the technique:
The key policy Praxis of Change:
With the technique it is possible to have peace and prosperity. Whether This is achieved depends on a political will. Philosophy reflects on the current society, and with that reflection, "discovers" that the future of the technical humanity depends on the political praxis, because it must concretize the practical solutions to the problems generated by the industrial society (famine, Misery, oppression).
With political praxis, modern technology will be a source of peace, prosperity and freedom. Many Utopian projects of the past are now possible "technically". If They have not been done it is because of lack of political will or inadequate or malicious and unethically sought political decisions.
Identity of the Philosopher:
It does not mean that the philosopher should become "political" (Spinoza said, that the less appropriate politician is the philosopher).
The philosopher is a thinker and his function is to make the reality intelligible and to orient the thought and the action towards the human emancipation and freedom.
Political philosophy contributors to political thought:
The Utility: That realism is an imperative need for political practice. It makes no sense to make political theories irrelevant to today's man. We have to start from reality as it is, and not how we would like it to be.
The demand for realities: that forces a reflection that links ends and means. Philosophy must teach how to use the means to achieve the goals to achieve.
In This sense we must consider the vision that politics has Machiavelli:
In Politics They count the results and the bad means, they are inadequate to achieve the end.
Politics has its own laws, its activity justifies itself, and it does not accept any limitations or rules that come from the outside. The politician is above all "realist" of its own political reality.
The end of their political activity is success and triumph in their goals.
The politician acts on a matter ("the evil Human Nature"): Therefore in his profession it does not act like "a Good Man" (under Penalty of ruin).
The politician will be willing to use "evil" if necessary. To save the state, the ruler must be willing to incur certain vices and must always act in accordance with conveniences. Even the duty to keep the word given, must be disobeyed when Fidelity turns against the ruler and changed the circumstances that caused the promise ("the Prince").
In politics it must be like "a fox". It does not affirm that the end justifies the means: or that a "desiraable" end moralize the means still "bad". But It claims that ethics does not enter into politics. Because in politics a good medium is only the one that is "effective"; But The fact that it is effective makes it morally "good".
Vision of political activity today:
Machiavelli's vision is rejected today. And, it is said, that only "generous" objectives could justify the use of means necessary to achieve them. But It is forgotten that there are no political ends that men have not considered good and that in order to achieve them they have not justified the appropriate means.
Others consider that there are several types of morals, one of whose types is political "morality." This is how politics is kept out of morals, but at the same time it is a "moral" activity.
But morality is one, and it is valid for both the individual and society and political activity.
Philosophy in the face of political activity:
The Problem of political violence:
Man has powerful destruction instruments and to the reach of many: the recourse to violence takes us directly to the annihilation and destruction of the human race.
Simple condemnation of violence is not enough; But we must look for alternatives that can solve social and political conflicts, without the need to resort to extermination instruments.
The problem of avoiding the extermination of man is central today; And so philosophy should focus its activity on this problem.
To Review the warmongers doctrines that justify the "fair" or "preventive" war.
That overcoming the fear of nuclear war cannot be a "balance of terror," but eliminating all the assumptions that make war reasonable.
The war must be totally eliminated. Peace is necessarily possible: it assumes not a "gift," but a commitment, an ethical-political struggle.
As Bobbio says: "The Mission of philosophy is to acquire and transmit awareness of this situation-limit... and demonstrate to the clear where they lead us respectively... "