> Whatever the full and subtle meaning of “in essence the same” is, Heidegger fails to address the difference in ethical weight between the two phenomena he com

> Whatever the full and subtle meaning of “in essence the same” is, Heidegger fails to address the difference in ethical weight between the two phenomena he compares, or to show a path for just political choice. The first half of the article has some neat summaries of Heidegger’s thought and it’s reception, but I’m alarmed about Blitz’s sudden jump into the ethical and political at this point. I know he’s a political philosopher, but these texts, especially QCT, are about where and how it us possible to experience the world as itself any more. You can’t defer to ethics to adjudicate a crisis of perception. A good reader of the essay would need, at this point, to go back and understand what is meant by the phrase “prepare a free relationship” with technology. It’s just… odd. This turn by Blitz. He knows grouping these things is a provocation. He knows the provocation is to help us try to grasp the extent to which the fate of things is determined by the “enframing” in which they (may) appear. Then he just appeals to a normie’s average sense of the ethical difference between agriculture and genocide?