Standard

Postphenomenology and Purpose : Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations. / Van Den Eede, Yoni.

Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology: Programme & Abstracts. 2018. p. 53-53.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingMeeting abstract (Book)

Harvard

Van Den Eede, Y 2018, Postphenomenology and Purpose: Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations. in Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology: Programme & Abstracts. pp. 53-53, Human-Technology Relations, Enschede, Netherlands, 11/07/18.

APA

Van Den Eede, Y. (2018). Postphenomenology and Purpose: Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations. In Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology: Programme & Abstracts (pp. 53-53)

Vancouver

Van Den Eede Y. Postphenomenology and Purpose: Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations. In Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology: Programme & Abstracts. 2018. p. 53-53

Author

Van Den Eede, Yoni. / Postphenomenology and Purpose : Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations. Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology: Programme & Abstracts. 2018. pp. 53-53

BibTeX

@inbook{95ef4cc841fc43508ac41bdabe6b912d,
title = "Postphenomenology and Purpose: Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations",
abstract = "In the wake of discussions on the empirical turn in philosophy of technology, the status of pragmatism in postphenomenology (and/or mediation theory) is emerging as something of a question. Against any notion of transcendentalism, postphenomenology posits a (neo)pragmatist nonfoundationalism and antiessentialism. It is concerned first and foremost with praxical knowledge and active engagement with and through technologies. That is also probably why the field is generally friendly to design, engineering and other domains of application. Especially in Verbeek’s work, this becomes particularly tangible, when he contrasts mediation theory to critical theory, arguing that critical theorists only “talk”; they don’t “do.” While the latter reproach postphenomenology/mediation theory for its lack of politics, Verbeek actually poses that “real” politics cannot be “done” by critical theorists—indeed exactly because of their “not doing.” But this brings up two issues. First, to which extent are the two main dictionary definitions of pragmatism mixed up here, and how should we map the tension between the two—that is, 1) the philosophical movement, and 2) ‘a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems’ (thefreedictionary.com)? Does a pragmatist attitude (in the philosophical-theoretical sense) automatically lead to a pragmatist, or pragmatic, (literal) way-of-doing? And, second, if we choose to “do,” what should we want to accomplish? Which goals should we aim at? Because if practical engagement becomes a “disciplinary ideal” of sorts, while the goals stay undiscussed, to which extent will the field then be steered by unspoken (yes, political) assumptions? And finally, when we find the goals and make them explicit, will we be able to legitimize them on the basis of and in terms of the field itself? In this contribution, I want to broach these issues by developing the systems-oriented notion of purpose in the context of postphenomenology.",
author = "{Van Den Eede}, Yoni",
year = "2018",
language = "English",
pages = "53--53",
booktitle = "Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Postphenomenology and Purpose

T2 - Investigating the Pragmatism of Human-Technology Relations

AU - Van Den Eede, Yoni

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In the wake of discussions on the empirical turn in philosophy of technology, the status of pragmatism in postphenomenology (and/or mediation theory) is emerging as something of a question. Against any notion of transcendentalism, postphenomenology posits a (neo)pragmatist nonfoundationalism and antiessentialism. It is concerned first and foremost with praxical knowledge and active engagement with and through technologies. That is also probably why the field is generally friendly to design, engineering and other domains of application. Especially in Verbeek’s work, this becomes particularly tangible, when he contrasts mediation theory to critical theory, arguing that critical theorists only “talk”; they don’t “do.” While the latter reproach postphenomenology/mediation theory for its lack of politics, Verbeek actually poses that “real” politics cannot be “done” by critical theorists—indeed exactly because of their “not doing.” But this brings up two issues. First, to which extent are the two main dictionary definitions of pragmatism mixed up here, and how should we map the tension between the two—that is, 1) the philosophical movement, and 2) ‘a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems’ (thefreedictionary.com)? Does a pragmatist attitude (in the philosophical-theoretical sense) automatically lead to a pragmatist, or pragmatic, (literal) way-of-doing? And, second, if we choose to “do,” what should we want to accomplish? Which goals should we aim at? Because if practical engagement becomes a “disciplinary ideal” of sorts, while the goals stay undiscussed, to which extent will the field then be steered by unspoken (yes, political) assumptions? And finally, when we find the goals and make them explicit, will we be able to legitimize them on the basis of and in terms of the field itself? In this contribution, I want to broach these issues by developing the systems-oriented notion of purpose in the context of postphenomenology.

AB - In the wake of discussions on the empirical turn in philosophy of technology, the status of pragmatism in postphenomenology (and/or mediation theory) is emerging as something of a question. Against any notion of transcendentalism, postphenomenology posits a (neo)pragmatist nonfoundationalism and antiessentialism. It is concerned first and foremost with praxical knowledge and active engagement with and through technologies. That is also probably why the field is generally friendly to design, engineering and other domains of application. Especially in Verbeek’s work, this becomes particularly tangible, when he contrasts mediation theory to critical theory, arguing that critical theorists only “talk”; they don’t “do.” While the latter reproach postphenomenology/mediation theory for its lack of politics, Verbeek actually poses that “real” politics cannot be “done” by critical theorists—indeed exactly because of their “not doing.” But this brings up two issues. First, to which extent are the two main dictionary definitions of pragmatism mixed up here, and how should we map the tension between the two—that is, 1) the philosophical movement, and 2) ‘a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems’ (thefreedictionary.com)? Does a pragmatist attitude (in the philosophical-theoretical sense) automatically lead to a pragmatist, or pragmatic, (literal) way-of-doing? And, second, if we choose to “do,” what should we want to accomplish? Which goals should we aim at? Because if practical engagement becomes a “disciplinary ideal” of sorts, while the goals stay undiscussed, to which extent will the field then be steered by unspoken (yes, political) assumptions? And finally, when we find the goals and make them explicit, will we be able to legitimize them on the basis of and in terms of the field itself? In this contribution, I want to broach these issues by developing the systems-oriented notion of purpose in the context of postphenomenology.

M3 - Meeting abstract (Book)

SP - 53

EP - 53

BT - Human-Technology Relations: Postphenomenology and Philosophy of Technology

ER -

ID: 42003839