Heidegger has been blamed for being obsolete, irrelevant, ignorant and even dangerous in relation to contemporary philosophy of technology. Based on mainly two texts from Heidegger’s post-war production, “The Question Concerning Technology” (1953) and “Only a God can Save Us” (1966/1976), this commentary to Don Ihde’s article tries to show how Heidegger actually makes sense to philosophy of technology. The sheer fact that many postmodern thinkers, among those Don Ihde, are constantly ‘measuring’ their line of thoughts and use of concepts against Heidegger’s original thinking is proof of this relevance. I think that Heidegger, despite his despicable political and moral convictions, is needed when it comes to a critique and understanding of contemporary technological innovation and development in relation to what it means to be human. Most important is to stress that Heidegger was not a technodystopian, which a thorough reading of the two selected texts clearly shows. On the contrary, Heidegger points at the existential dialectical essence in technology, which means that both damnation and redemption can be mediated by technology.

海德格尔因与当代技术哲学相比过时，无关紧要，无知甚至危险而受到指责。主要基于海德格尔战后作品中的两个文本，“有关技术的问题”（1953年）和“只有上帝才能拯救我们”（1966/1976年），这篇对唐·艾德的文章的评论试图表明海德格尔实际上是如何有意义的技术哲学。许多后现代思想家（包括唐·艾德·海德）都在不断地“衡量”他们的思想路线和与海德格尔的原始思想相违背的观念这一事实，证明了这一点。我认为，尽管海德格尔在政治和道德上有卑鄙的信念，但在对当代技术创新和发展以及对人类的意义方面的批评和理解上，还是有必要的。最重要的是要强调，海德格尔不是技术顽固主义者，对这两个选定文本的透彻阅读清楚地表明了这一点。相反，海德格尔指出存在辩证法技术的本质，这意味着诅咒和救赎都可以通过技术来调解。