The artifact: Intentional structure or autonomous system?
The ontology of artifactual function under the light of intentionalism, dualism and the philosophy of Gilbert Simondon
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-740Keywords:
function, structure, dualism, SimondonAbstract
The present paper carries out a comparative analysis of the notion of function in analytical philosophy and the philosophy of technology of Gilbert Simondon. I examine the relationship between agency, intentionality, and the use andproduction of artifacts in both approaches. A striking feature of Simondon’s approach is that he does not draw any real distinction between function and structure, a distinction that is central to artifact dualism. Finally, I examine the systemic theory of function developed by Cummins in the analytical side. This theory is considered quite compatible with Simondon’s, and some productive conclusions can be drawn from their comparison.
Downloads
References
ARTHUR, B. W. (1989): “Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events”, Economic Journal, 99, pp. 116-31.
ARTHUR, B. W. (2009): The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves, Washington, The Free Press.
BAKER, L. (2004): “The ontology of artefacts”, Philosophical Explorations, vol. 7, nº 2, pp. 99-111.
BULLER, D. (1998): “Etiological theories of function: A geographical survey”, Biology and Philosophy, 13, pp. 505-527.
CARRARA, M. y VERMAAS, P. (2009): “The fine-grained metaphysics of artefactual and biological functional kinds”, Synthese, 169, pp. 125-143.
CUMMINS, R. (1975): “Functional analysis”, Journal of Philosophy, 72, pp. 741-765.
DAVID, P. (1985): “Clio and the economics of QWERTY”, American Economic Review, 75, pp. 332-37.
DIPERT, R. (1995): “Some issues in the theory of artefacts: Defining ‘artefact’ and related notions”, Monist, 78(2), pp. 119-136.
ELDER, C. (2007): “On the place of artefacts in ontology”, en E. Margolis y S. Laurence (Eds.): Creations of the mind: essays on artefacts and their representation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 33-51.
HILPINEN, R. (1993): “Authors and artefacts”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 93, pp. 155-178.
HOUKES, W., VERMAAS, P., DORSO, K. y DE VRIES, M. J. (2002): “Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account”, Design Studies, 23, pp. 303-320.
HOUKES, W. y MEIJERS, A. (2006): “The ontology of artefacts: the hard problem”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, pp. 118-131.
HOUKES, W. y VERMAAS, P. (2009): “Contemporary engineering and the metaphysics of artefacts: Beyond the artisan model”, The Monist, 92(3), pp. 403-419.
ILLIES, C. y MEIJERS, A. (2009): “Artefacts without agency”, The Monist, 92(3), pp. 420-440.
KROES, P. y MEIJERS, A. (2006): “Introduction: The Dual Nature of Technical Artefacts”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, pp. 1-4.
LEWENS, T. (2004): Organisms and artefacts: Design in nature and elsewhere, Cambridge, MIT Press.
MITCHAM, C. (2002): “Do artefacts have dual natures? Two points of commentary on the Delft Project”, Techné, vol. 6, nº 2.
MONTOYA SANTAMARÍA, J. W. (2006): La individuación y la técnica en la obra de Gilbert Simondon, Medellín, Editorial Universidad EAFIT.
MUMFORD, S. (2006): “Function, Structure, Capacity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, pp. 76-80.
PRESTON, B. (1998): “Why is a Wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 95, nº 5, pp. 215-254.
SEARLE, J. (1995): The construction of social reality, Nueva York, The Free Press.
SIMONDON, G. (2008): El modo de existencia de los objetos técnicos, Buenos Aires, Prometeo.
SIMONDON, G. (2009): La individuación a la luz de las nociones de forma y de información, Buenos Aires, Editorial Cactus & La Cebra.
TENNER, E. (1996): Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences, Nueva York, Alfred A. Knopf.
THOMASSON, A. (2003): “Realism and human kinds”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 67, nº 3, pp. 580-609.
THOMASSON, A. (2007): “Artefacts and human concepts”, en E. Margolis y S. Laurence (Eds.): Creations of the mind: essays on artefacts and their representation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 52-73.
TOSCANO, A. (2007): “Technical culture and the limits of interaction: A note on Simondon”, en J. Brouwer y A. Mulder (Eds.): Interact or Die!, Rotterdam, NAi, pp. 198-205
VERMAAS, P. (2009): “On unification: Taking technical functions as objective (and biological functions as subjective)”, en U. Krohs y P. Kroes (Eds.): Functions in biological and artificial worlds: Comparative philosophical perspectives, Cambridge y Londres, MIT Press, pp. 69-87.
VERMAAS, P. y HOUKES, W. (2006): “Technical functions: A drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, pp. 5-18.
WOUTERS, A. (2005): “The function debate in philosophy”, Acta Biotheoretica, 53, pp. 123-151.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
