Heidegger vs. McWhorter

I found McWhorter’s essay to be very interesting, particularly her criticism of Heidegger’s idea that we should solely reflect on the problems facing our world instead of acting proactively. A notable quote from the reading is, “Heidegger frustrates us. At a time where the stakes are so high and decisive action is so loudly and urgently called for, Heidegger apparently calls us to do – nothing”(3). She seems to support quick problem analysis and solving so that the world’s issues are fixed.

I am not sure if either of these approaches is totally helpful on its own. While many world problems (pollution, food shortages, disease, etc.) do require action, I am hesitant to believe that all problems should be dealt with as soon as possible. There is merit in thinking things through and forming reasonable and effective plans. To bring up an example from the beginning of the semester, consider the impact of pesticide resistant crops on the environment. Creating these plants and saturating fields with pesticides seems like a great short term plan and it works quite effectively as a quick action to solve a big problem in monoculture today. However, in the long run, it is possible that pesticide resistant insects will develop and we will have a serious problem, not only with agriculture but with the global ecosystem. At this point, the pesticide producers merely plan to continue the cycle with another chemical until the insects adapt again. And on and on. In partial defense of Heidegger, I think that some more thinking and planning would have been beneficial rather than quickly producing a product without a sustainable long term plan for its use.

This being said, I do not agree fully with Heidegger or McWhorter. Contrary to Heidegger, I believe that educated action is absolutely necessary to solve the world’s problems. Pollution and disease will not just simply “go away”. I disagree with McWhorter because she seems to discount the positive effects of fully considering all options and thinking deeply before acting, although I do understand and accept her point that we can never “know it all” (6). Ultimately, I think that a middle ground is ideal.