Artifacts, agents and intentions: towards a reflexive ontology of technical objects

Andrés Crelier, Diego Parente

Resumen


A central issue in the contemporary debate in analytical metaphysics is the plausibility of the ontological inclusion of ordinary objects, especially artifacts. This paper explores the realist ontologies that include “intentional creations” such as artifacts in their programs, giving rise to a normative view of the world. It approaches the assumptions of two possible realist ontologies implied in the contemporary debate on artifacts. First, it makes a distinction between a reflexive and a non-reflexive ontology, stressing the hermeneutical stance of the former. Second, it focuses on the reflexive nature of the ontology being reconstructed. Third, it discusses its realist character, rejecting the objections that warn against the idealist implications of such a view.

Key words. Technical artifact; normativity; intention; reflexive ontology, Realism, analytical metaphysics. 


Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Baker, L.R. (2007). The Metaphysics of Everyday Life. An Essay in Practical Realism, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Basalla, G. (1988), The Evolution of Technology, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dancy, J. (2005), “Non-naturalism,” in D.Copp, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 122-145.

Dancy, J. (2006), “The thing to use,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (37): 58-61.

Denkel, A. (1995), “Artifacts and constituents,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LV/2: 311-322.

Elder, C. (2007), “On the place of artifacts on ontology,” in E. Margolis and S. Laurence, eds., Creations of the Mind. Theories of Artifacts and their Representation, New York: Oxford University Press.

Franssen, M. (2006), “The normativity of artifacts,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (37): 42–57.

Franssen, M. (2009), “Artifacts and normativity,” in A. Meijers, ed., Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, London: Elsevier.

Heidegger, M. (2006), Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.

Hilpinen, R. (1992), “On artifacts and works of art,” Theoria 58 (1): 58-82.

Hilpinen, R. (1993), “Authors and artifacts,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93: 155-178.

Houkes, W. (2008), “Designing is the construction of use plans,” in P. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light and S. Moore, eds., Philosophy and Design. From Engineering to Architecture, New York: Springer.

Houkes, W. y Vermaas, P. (2010), Technical Functions. On the Use and Design of Artifacts, Nueva York: Springer.

Hughes, J. (2009), “An artifact is to use: an introduction to instrumental functions,” Synthese, (168) 1.

Kroes, P. and Meijers, A. (2002), “The dual nature of technical artifacts: presentation of a new research programme,” Techné (6), 2: 4-8.

Lakoff, G. (1987), Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lewis, D. (1991), Parts of Classes, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Merricks, T. (2001), Objects and Persons, New York: Oxford University Press.

Millikan, R. (2000), On Clear and Confused Ideas, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Preston, B. (1998), “Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function,” The Journal of Philosophy (95): 215-254.

Scheele, M. (2006), “Function and use of technical artefacts: social conditions of function ascription,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science (37): 23-36.

Scheele, M. (2007), “Social norms in artefact use: proper functions and action theory,” Techné (10) 1: 60-70.

Sellars, W. (1963), Science, Perception and Reality, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sider, Th. (2002), Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time, London: Oxford University Press.

Simondon, G. (1969), Du mode d’existence des objets techniques, Paris: Aubier-Montaigne.

Simondon, G. (2006), L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information, Paris: Jerome Millon.

Soavi, Marzia (2009), “Antirealism and artefact kinds,” Techné. Research in Philosophy and Technology (13) 2.

Sosa, E. (1993), “Putnam’s pragmatic Realism,” Journal of Philosophy 90: 605–626.

Thomasson, A. (2007), “Artifacts and human concepts,” in E. Margolis and S.Laurence, eds., Creations of the Mind. Theories of Artifacts and their Representation, New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomasson, A. (2005), “Ingarden and the ontology of cultural objects,” in A. Chrudzinski, ed., Existence, Culture and Persons. The Ontology of Roman Ingarden, Frankfurt: Ontos: 115-136.

Thomasson, A. (2003), “Realism and human kinds,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXVII (3): 580-609.

Tugendhat, E. (2001), Aufsätze 1992-2000, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Van Inwagen, P. (1990), Material Beings, New York: Cornell University Press.

Vega, J. (2007), “La sustancialidad de los artefactos,”, in D. Parente, ed. Encrucijadas de la técnica, La Plata (Argentina): EDULP.

Vega, J. and Lawler, D. (forthcoming), “Creating artifactual kinds,” in M. Franssen, P. Kroes and P. Vermaas, eds., The Metaphysics of Technical Artefacts, Dordrecht: Synthese Library.

Wiggins, D. (2001), Sameness and Substance Renewed, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zimmerman, D. (2002), “The constitution of persons by bodies: a critique of Lynne R. Baker’s Theory of Material Constitution,” Philosophical Topics (30): 295-338.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Revista semestral editada por el Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos
y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano de la Secretaría de Educación Pública,
la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa y Edicions UIB de la Universitat de les Illes Balears.

Lombardo Toledano 51, Col. Ex-Hda. Guadalupe Chimalistac,
Del. Alvaro Obregón, C.P. 01050, México, D.F.
Tels. (5255) 5661-4679 y 5661-4987
Fax: (5255) 5661-1787