Techne 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg,Ten Paradoxes of Technology/4 birds,is essential in a way tools are not.One can pick up and put down a tool,but humans can no more abandon speech than birds can abandon flight. Pushed to the extreme the common sense answer to Heidegger's puzzling question breaks down. Of course we usually do not fall into such absurdities when talking about animals,but the misleading implications of ordinary language do reflect our inadequate common sense understanding of technology.This has consequences I will discuss in the rest of this paper. Heidegger's second option,that birds have wings because they fly,challenges us in a different way.It seems absurd on the face of it.How can birds fly unless they have wings?So flying cannot be the cause of wings unless an effect can precede a cause. If we are going to make any sense of Heidegger's point we need to reformulate it in less paradoxical language.Here is what he really means.Birds belong to a specific niche in the environment.That niche consists of treetops in which to dwell,insects to eat,and so on.It is only available to a specific type of animal with a specific type of body.Flying,as a necessary property of an organism that occupies this particular niche,requires wings rather than the other way around as common sense would have it. This is a holistic conception of the relation of the animal to its environment.We are not to think of birds,insects and trees as fully separate things but rather as forming a system in which each relates essentially to the other.But this is not an organic whole the parts of which are so intimately connected they can only be separated by destroying the organism.In the case of an animal and its niche,separation is possible at least temporarily,although it threatens the survival of the animal and perhaps of other elements of the environment dependent on it. These relationships are bit like those of a part of a machine to the whole machine.The part can be separated from the whole but it then loses its function.A tire that has been removed from a car continues to be a tire but it cannot do the things tires are meant to do.Following Heidegger's thought,it is easy to see that the form and even the existence of tires such as we know them depends on the whole car they are destined to serve.And the reciprocal also holds:care and tire are mutually interdependent.The car is not just assembled from pre-existing parts since the nature of the parts is derived from the design of the car and vice versa.The car does not ride on the road because it has tires.Rather,the tires belong to the car because the car rides on the road I will call this the paradox of the parts and the whole.The apparent origin of complex wholes lies in their parts but,paradoxical though it seems,in reality the parts find their origin in the whole to which they belong.I want to illustrate this paradox with two images,each of which exemplifies the two answers to Heidegger's question in graphic terms.Techné 14:1 Winter 2010 Feenberg, Ten Paradoxes of Technology/4 birds, is essential in a way tools are not. One can pick up and put down a tool, but humans can no more abandon speech than birds can abandon flight. Pushed to the extreme the common sense answer to Heidegger's puzzling question breaks down. Of course we usually do not fall into such absurdities when talking about animals, but the misleading implications of ordinary language do reflect our inadequate common sense understanding of technology. This has consequences I will discuss in the rest of this paper. Heidegger's second option, that birds have wings because they fly, challenges us in a different way. It seems absurd on the face of it. How can birds fly unless they have wings? So flying cannot be the cause of wings unless an effect can precede a cause. If we are going to make any sense of Heidegger's point we need to reformulate it in less paradoxical language. Here is what he really means. Birds belong to a specific niche in the environment. That niche consists of treetops in which to dwell, insects to eat, and so on. It is only available to a specific type of animal with a specific type of body. Flying, as a necessary property of an organism that occupies this particular niche, requires wings rather than the other way around as common sense would have it. This is a holistic conception of the relation of the animal to its environment. We are not to think of birds, insects and trees as fully separate things but rather as forming a system in which each relates essentially to the other. But this is not an organic whole the parts of which are so intimately connected they can only be separated by destroying the organism. In the case of an animal and its niche, separation is possible at least temporarily, although it threatens the survival of the animal and perhaps of other elements of the environment dependent on it. These relationships are bit like those of a part of a machine to the whole machine. The part can be separated from the whole but it then loses its function. A tire that has been removed from a car continues to be a tire but it cannot do the things tires are meant to do. Following Heidegger's thought, it is easy to see that the form and even the existence of tires such as we know them depends on the whole car they are destined to serve. And the reciprocal also holds: care and tire are mutually interdependent. The car is not just assembled from pre-existing parts since the nature of the parts is derived from the design of the car and vice versa. The car does not ride on the road because it has tires. Rather, the tires belong to the car because the car rides on the road. I will call this the paradox of the parts and the whole. The apparent origin of complex wholes lies in their parts but, paradoxical though it seems, in reality the parts find their origin in the whole to which they belong. I want to illustrate this paradox with two images, each of which exemplifies the two answers to Heidegger’s question in graphic terms