Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMason, D
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-31T08:52:59Z
dc.date.issued2022-03-21
dc.date.updated2022-03-30T18:16:20Z
dc.description.abstractIn The Question Concerning Technology, Martin Heidegger puts forth his critique of the technological way of Being, which he terms Gestell, commonly translated as enframing. This pre-reflective understanding of the world manifests itself as a world of inter-changeable resources, as Hubert Dreyfus puts it. As the modern understanding of Being, Heidegger thinks it comes alongside a danger – that it is considered to be the only way of Being. This is dangerous because it conceals the historical narrative of Being: understandings of it have changed over the course of history. Yet there remains a possible saving from this danger. By understanding that enframing is but one way of Being amongst previous ways, we might keep open the possibility that enframing does not end up becoming the final one. It is my claim that Heidegger’s critique of the technological way of Being, enframing, might be able to be understood from a more naturalistic position; the argument that I shall present will be that Iain McGilchrist’s Hemisphere Hypothesis might be able to act as a neuro-cortical basis for enframing. It is McGilchrist’s claim that the two hemispheres of the brain are divided not on a structural or even functional basis, but on an attentional one: they interpret and engage with the world in fundamentally different, yet complementary ways. However, he claims, the left-hemisphere has been able to achieve a kind of dominance over the right, for various complex reasons, which has had the resultant effect of modern society being broadly reflective of its general outlook of the world. I will argue for the claim that the way the left-hemisphere views the world can be broadly construed in terms that are similar to Heidegger’s analysis of enframing, and that as such it might be that the notion of left-hemisphere dominance could be the basis of enframing. I will also argue for the secondary claim, necessarily connected to the first, that if left-hemisphere dominance might be understood as the basis of the danger of enframing, then a return to the right-hemisphere, to hemispheric balance, might just be the saving power as Heidegger suggests, which can open up the possibility of a different way of Being.en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/129213
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-7902-5854 (Mason, Dan)
dc.publisherUniversity of Exeteren_GB
dc.subjectPhenomenologyen_GB
dc.subjectPhilosophical Anthropologyen_GB
dc.subjectMartin Heideggeren_GB
dc.subjectCognitive Scienceen_GB
dc.subjectNeuroscienceen_GB
dc.subjectIain McGilchristen_GB
dc.subjectPhilosophy of Minden_GB
dc.titleCan McGilchrist's Neuro-Cortical Hemisphere Hypothesis offer a Naturalistic Account of Heidegger's Critique of the Technological Way of Being?en_GB
dc.typeThesis or dissertationen_GB
dc.date.available2022-03-31T08:52:59Z
dc.contributor.advisorMoss, Lenny
dc.contributor.advisorKrueger, Joel
dc.publisher.departmentPhilosophy
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dc.type.degreetitleMbyRes in Philosophy
dc.type.qualificationlevelMasters
dc.type.qualificationnameMbyRes Dissertation
rioxxterms.versionNAen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-03-21
rioxxterms.typeThesisen_GB
refterms.dateFOA2022-03-31T08:53:10Z


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record