New Praxis. Releasement in a Technological World

  • Alfredo MarcosEmail author
Part of the Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 46)


As a result of the technological development we are witnessing some profound global changes that affect our lives in a very direct and ambivalent way. In fact, we have the feeling that technology is as useful as it is dangerous. And this double face produces in us some restlessness. This uneasiness is at the root of some practices that imply the total or partial renunciation of certain technological modes. These practices are not always endowed with a clear sense and foundation. They are rather fuzzy reactions guided by our sensations and intuitions. In the other pole, we have the work of some philosophers who have reflected on technology. Consequently, they have put forward valuable advices that remains, however, at an abstract level. Our hypothesis is that the notion of technological silence can function as a bridge between philosophical speculation and effective praxis, providing the first with concretion and the second with lucidity. To prove it, we will present, first, the very notion of technological silence (Sect. 3.1), and then some contemporary practices aimed at the reduction of technology (Sect. 3.2). Thirdly, we will present the recommendations of Heidegger and Kierkegaard for our use of technology (Sect. 3.3). We will see, next, in what sense technological silence can act here as a bridge between philosophy and praxis (Sect. 3.4). We will collect, finally, all the issues in a conclusive summary (Sect. 3.5).


Technology Releasement Uneasiness Heidegger Technological fasting 



I want to thank José Chillón, Mariano Asla, Luca Valera, and Marta Bertolaso for their valuable comments on previous versions of this text.


  1. AA.VV. (2017) Slow movement (culture). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available via: Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  2. AA.VV. (2018) Digital detox. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Available via: Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  3. Aubenque P (1993) La prudence chez Aristote. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox DB, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, Franklin B, Kellner MJ, Joung Julia et al (2017) RNA editing with CRISPR-Cas13. Science. Scholar
  5. Diéguez A (2017) Transhumanismo. La búsqueda tecnológica del mejoramiento humano. Herder, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  6. Huete EG (2017) Hay que buscar momentos de silencio tecnológico. La Vanguardia. Available via: Accessed 31 Jan 2018
  7. Heidegger M (1966) Discourse on thinking: a translation of Gelassenheit (trans. Anderson JM, Freund EH). Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Kant I (1998) Critique of pure reason (trans. Guyer P, Wood AW). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Kierkegaard S (1993) Upbuilding discourses in various spirits (trans. Hong HV, Hong EH). Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Marcos A (2011) Prudencia, verdad práctica y razón postmoderna. In: Ransanz ARP, Velasco A (eds) Racionalidad en ciencia y tecnología. Nuevas perspectivas iberoamericanas. UNAM, México, pp 119–134Google Scholar
  11. Marcos Alfredo (2016a) La bioética ante las nuevas antropotecnias. Bioethics UPdate 2:102–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marcos Alfredo (2016b) Los retos éticos actuales de las profesiones sanitarias: Del campo de batalla al obrador. Conversar 1:9–23Google Scholar
  13. Ortega JG (2013) Meditación de la técnica. Available via: Accessed 31 Jan 2017
  14. Sandel Michael J (2007) The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Harvard University Press, CambrigeGoogle Scholar
  15. Yamanaka Shinya (2012) Induced pluripotent stem cells: past present and future. Cell Stem Cell 10(6):678–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversidad de ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations