Bergson and the Critique of Technology

Bergson's demonstration that Intellect falsifies lived experience, especially insofar as it quantifies it, is sometimes interpreted as a 'Critique of Technology'. However, neither an Epistemological distinction, i. e. Intuition vs. Intellect, nor a Metaphysical one, i. e. Spirit vs. Matter, no more suffices as a 'Critique' than does the Ontological distinction between Being and beings, which is the context of a presumed similar effort from Heidegger several decades later. The implicit premise in such an interpretation is that Technology dehumanizes, which, however, is a vulnerable ground of a Critique of it, since, just as Intellect, as Bergson himself agrees, has been beneficial to humanity, arguably, so, too, has been Technology. Regardless, even if it is granted that Technology is universally and absolutely a dehumanizing influence, the premise still lacks what is necessary to any Critique, namely some normative principle. In other words, a Critique of Technology is first and foremost a Moral issue, and, hence, must be based on some normative principle, which Metaphysics, Epistemology, or Ontology, at best, only obliquely supplies. In contrast, Bergson's Moral doctrine does seem to present such a principle--'Spiritual e\Evolution is good'. However, even that thesis is not a sound ground for the proposition 'Technology dehumanizes', since Evolution itself is arguably a dehumanizing process, i. e. it is the promotion of a post-human entity. In contrast, Kant's Rational principle--'Never treat a human being as a mere means to an end'--does sufficiently address the common underlying concern with Technology. It is therefore ironic that perhaps the definitive basis of a Critique of Technology is a product of the very Intellect that is the prime target of Bergson's version of such a Critique.