Gregory Zobel
Chapter 18
Hans Jonas: Toward a Philosophy of Technology
Hans Jonas works towards defining terms and identifying key themes surrounding the philosophy of technology. Jonas identifies two other major themes in the philosophy of technology: form and matter. Jonas labels them formal dynamics and substantive content. Formal dynamics represents technology as a "continuing collective enterprise" which is apparently self-propelled; substantive content of technology is "[T]he things it puts into human use, the powers it confers, the novel objectives it opens up or dictates, and the altered manner of human action by which these objectives are realized" (191). As Jonas states, the first is abstract and the second is concrete. To this he adds the third theme of morals or ethics.
Jonas spends five pages developing the formal dynamics of technology. The first key points he establishes is that while earlier technology was centered around possession of tools, modern technology is focused on being a process (192). A key aspects of this process is the notion of constant progress (192-3). Other traits Jonas identifies technology as having spur the feedbackish ideological loop of infinite progress: restlessness; competition; population growth; quasi-utopian visions; need for social control; and the premise that eternal progress is possible (193-4). This last element, Jonas states, is key: "Unless we understand this ontologic-epistemological premise, we have not understood the inmost agent of technological dynamics" (194). Jonas then goes on to identify how science and technology feed each other's restlessness, motivate each other, and urge each other forward to perpetual research and development (195).
Next Jonas explores the materiality of technology and several facets of its expression. First, technology exerts demands on the social and natural worlds. However, technology often generates other technology with even greater demands; he cites the steam engine's need for coal as an example (197). This new technology, often designed for production of goods, regularly shifts into the private homes and lives of people, such as audio and visual production (198). Another result of technological development is that entirely new things are discovered, like electricity, or media are created, such as communication engineering. Thus, while science may generate knowledge that technology can use, technology generates tools that facilitates scientific discovery of yet more things which technology can then apply. The final frontier of this discovery/application, Jonas asserts, is biology and the human body.
Finally, Jonas explores the ethics of technology. As he states, given the overwhelming power and impact of technology on life, the future of human life is at stake, so ethics are going to be involved (200). He claims that even though technology appears to offer people a greater sense of freedom, technology simultaneously creates a greater state of determinism. The very artifact that we have now implies that there is something better, something as yet undiscovered, and since we hold one object today, that very object drives us to desire and create something for tomorrow (201). Rather than simply participating in this process, Jonas pushes for an awareness of the process and an awareness of the dangers of certain technologies and technological systems (201-2). For Jonas, the real issue in maintaining proper balance and control of technology is to make sure that the proper people into positions of responsibility and power (202).
Showing posts with label carter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carter. Show all posts
Sunday, August 30, 2009
5369/ Shrader-Frechette/ Ch 17 Reading Response
Gregory Zobel
Chapter 17
Kristin Shrader-Frechette: Technology and Ethics
Shrader-Frechette argues that the development of technology has not generated new ethical questions; rather, technology has expanded on currently existing ethical questions. She then asserts that new technological developments requires critics who examine ethics and technology need both technological and philosophical skills (187). One reason is that "Although such factual knowledge does not determine the ethical decision, it constrains it in important and unavoidable way" (187). Shrader-Frechette also asserts that knowledge of economics is equally critical.
Next, she describes the five key categories for most technology and ethics questions:
1. conceptual/metaethical
2. general normative
3. particular normative
4. ethical consequences of technological developments
5. ethical justifiability of methods of assessing technology (187).
Central to the discussion of technology and ethics is the concept of risk. Shrader-Frechette asserts that technical experts and engineers define risk in probabilistic terms regarding fatality and use quantitative language. Humanistic critics, she claims, state that such terms are not a full accounting of the risk and do not address issues of democracy, consent, welfare, and personal freedom (188). Even when risks are analyzed and put forth, decision making is still conflicted. Two strong, opposing trends are to select the technology which offers the greatest benefit or to select the technology which offers the least catastrophic risk.
The notion of risk is complicated even more, Shrader-Frechette asserts, by technologies like fission which, if catastrophes do happen, can impact large portions of the population who did not consent to be in the range of the experiment or its benefits. This issue summons another topic: consent. One side argues that if a person takes a job, or a culture wants the benefits of a certain technology, then they have consented to the inherent risks. Opposition states that acceptance does not mean consent to certain risks, especially if those risks are not clearly and thoroughly understood.
Chapter 17
Kristin Shrader-Frechette: Technology and Ethics
Shrader-Frechette argues that the development of technology has not generated new ethical questions; rather, technology has expanded on currently existing ethical questions. She then asserts that new technological developments requires critics who examine ethics and technology need both technological and philosophical skills (187). One reason is that "Although such factual knowledge does not determine the ethical decision, it constrains it in important and unavoidable way" (187). Shrader-Frechette also asserts that knowledge of economics is equally critical.
Next, she describes the five key categories for most technology and ethics questions:
1. conceptual/metaethical
2. general normative
3. particular normative
4. ethical consequences of technological developments
5. ethical justifiability of methods of assessing technology (187).
Central to the discussion of technology and ethics is the concept of risk. Shrader-Frechette asserts that technical experts and engineers define risk in probabilistic terms regarding fatality and use quantitative language. Humanistic critics, she claims, state that such terms are not a full accounting of the risk and do not address issues of democracy, consent, welfare, and personal freedom (188). Even when risks are analyzed and put forth, decision making is still conflicted. Two strong, opposing trends are to select the technology which offers the greatest benefit or to select the technology which offers the least catastrophic risk.
The notion of risk is complicated even more, Shrader-Frechette asserts, by technologies like fission which, if catastrophes do happen, can impact large portions of the population who did not consent to be in the range of the experiment or its benefits. This issue summons another topic: consent. One side argues that if a person takes a job, or a culture wants the benefits of a certain technology, then they have consented to the inherent risks. Opposition states that acceptance does not mean consent to certain risks, especially if those risks are not clearly and thoroughly understood.
5369/ Ellul/ Ch 16 Reading Response
Gregory Zobel
Chapter 16
Jacques Ellul: On the Aims of a Philosophy of Technology
The Ellul excerpt centers on contextualizing the setting for his argument and defining key ideas. He begins strategically by claiming that no total account of technology, or what he calls technique, is possible. Ellul defines technique thus: "[T]echnique is the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity" (182). Shortly thereafter, Ellul acknowledges that he, too, is involved in a technological civilization, and thus his perspective is biased (183). Then he claims that he has not set out to prove anything (183). Ellul continues hedging his position and states that his work centers on collective, not individual, mechanisms. The only role of the historical past is for comparison. Once he completes his hedging, he warns the reader not to be fatalistic; his conclusions are only probable if the populations do not respond and change their current course.
Ellul offers no solution, and he claims that no solution offered as yet to the challenge of technique is viable. Earlier solutions he dismisses as fanciful or simplistic. These will not work because, "Technique presents man with multiple problems" (185). The problems are complex and require complex solutions. Ironically, the individual man whose life Ellul cannot account for is then held accountable and, according to Ellul, is the potential source of the solution: "Each man must make this effort [to overcome technological determinants] in every area of life, in his profession and in his social, religious, and family relationships" (185). Resisting technological determination not only helps humanity avoid the oncoming problems Ellul will describe in his book, but is also an expression of personal freedom for Ellul defines freedom as not inherent; rather, "[F]reedom consists in overcoming and transcending these determinisms" (185). Thus, the solution Ellul provides appears to be one of individually designed resistance to technological determinism.
Chapter 16
Jacques Ellul: On the Aims of a Philosophy of Technology
The Ellul excerpt centers on contextualizing the setting for his argument and defining key ideas. He begins strategically by claiming that no total account of technology, or what he calls technique, is possible. Ellul defines technique thus: "[T]echnique is the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity" (182). Shortly thereafter, Ellul acknowledges that he, too, is involved in a technological civilization, and thus his perspective is biased (183). Then he claims that he has not set out to prove anything (183). Ellul continues hedging his position and states that his work centers on collective, not individual, mechanisms. The only role of the historical past is for comparison. Once he completes his hedging, he warns the reader not to be fatalistic; his conclusions are only probable if the populations do not respond and change their current course.
Ellul offers no solution, and he claims that no solution offered as yet to the challenge of technique is viable. Earlier solutions he dismisses as fanciful or simplistic. These will not work because, "Technique presents man with multiple problems" (185). The problems are complex and require complex solutions. Ironically, the individual man whose life Ellul cannot account for is then held accountable and, according to Ellul, is the potential source of the solution: "Each man must make this effort [to overcome technological determinants] in every area of life, in his profession and in his social, religious, and family relationships" (185). Resisting technological determination not only helps humanity avoid the oncoming problems Ellul will describe in his book, but is also an expression of personal freedom for Ellul defines freedom as not inherent; rather, "[F]reedom consists in overcoming and transcending these determinisms" (185). Thus, the solution Ellul provides appears to be one of individually designed resistance to technological determinism.
5369/ Bunge/ Ch 15 Reading Response
Gregory Zobel
Chapter 15
Mario Bunge: Philosophical Inputs and Outputs of Technology
Mario Bunge argues that technology is philosophical because of the nature of technological research and technological research planning and development (172-3). He also argues that technology is philosophical because of its location in material, social, conceptual, and general realms. After claiming that technology is philosophical, he defines technology as "[T]hat field of research and action that aims at the control or transformation of reality whether natural or social" (173). Given this definition of technology and its presence in all of the arenas, it has a significant impact upon daily life and experience; as such, the creation and application of such tools are inherently philosophical.
Bunge asserts that most technological ideas, and hence the core of its philosophy, can be found in the policy and decision making processes and in research (174). Technology's research methodology is similar to that of science, and both are goal-oriented, but the author states that science is centered on knowing truth while technology seeks out useful truth. Bunge then elaborates upon the shared hypotheses and epistemologies of science and technology.
The core of Bunge's argument that technology is inherently philosophical is located in the middle of the article. He claims that technological theories' concern for generic traits of systems, the stuff-free nature of the theories, and the theories untestable nature without further work make those theories technological and ontological. This position is developed by Bunge's presentation of two value-oriented theories which arose from technology: value theory and utility theory (177). He then links technology to two classic philosophical arenas, ethics and the law, by discussing how technology's use of norms could benefit both areas. As he states, "Technology can thus act as a methodological model for the normative sciences, in particular ethics" (179).
Having located technology's philosophical source, defined technology, and linked it to philosophical tradition, Bunge brings the article to conclusion by asserting that technology is not neutral. He argues that it has been a tool used and abused by various ideologies (180). As such, he claims that technology needs to develop its own ethics. As an integral part of contemporary culture, technology's philosophical impact cannot be safely ignored.
Chapter 15
Mario Bunge: Philosophical Inputs and Outputs of Technology
Mario Bunge argues that technology is philosophical because of the nature of technological research and technological research planning and development (172-3). He also argues that technology is philosophical because of its location in material, social, conceptual, and general realms. After claiming that technology is philosophical, he defines technology as "[T]hat field of research and action that aims at the control or transformation of reality whether natural or social" (173). Given this definition of technology and its presence in all of the arenas, it has a significant impact upon daily life and experience; as such, the creation and application of such tools are inherently philosophical.
Bunge asserts that most technological ideas, and hence the core of its philosophy, can be found in the policy and decision making processes and in research (174). Technology's research methodology is similar to that of science, and both are goal-oriented, but the author states that science is centered on knowing truth while technology seeks out useful truth. Bunge then elaborates upon the shared hypotheses and epistemologies of science and technology.
The core of Bunge's argument that technology is inherently philosophical is located in the middle of the article. He claims that technological theories' concern for generic traits of systems, the stuff-free nature of the theories, and the theories untestable nature without further work make those theories technological and ontological. This position is developed by Bunge's presentation of two value-oriented theories which arose from technology: value theory and utility theory (177). He then links technology to two classic philosophical arenas, ethics and the law, by discussing how technology's use of norms could benefit both areas. As he states, "Technology can thus act as a methodological model for the normative sciences, in particular ethics" (179).
Having located technology's philosophical source, defined technology, and linked it to philosophical tradition, Bunge brings the article to conclusion by asserting that technology is not neutral. He argues that it has been a tool used and abused by various ideologies (180). As such, he claims that technology needs to develop its own ethics. As an integral part of contemporary culture, technology's philosophical impact cannot be safely ignored.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Carter Red Reader Tech intro notes
from the anthology
170
scientific method taken for granted in analytic perspectives
contintental phil. often suspicious/critical of technology; often retain a larger, more holistic vision of technology
Bunge from Popper--anti-social construction
Technology has given us pragmatism; Bunge critiques pragmatism
171
Ellul holistic, descriptive
GOOD QUOTE
technology as a process vs. being an object/item
the most urgent philosophical need: avert disaster
170
scientific method taken for granted in analytic perspectives
contintental phil. often suspicious/critical of technology; often retain a larger, more holistic vision of technology
Bunge from Popper--anti-social construction
Technology has given us pragmatism; Bunge critiques pragmatism
171
Ellul holistic, descriptive
GOOD QUOTE
technology as a process vs. being an object/item
the most urgent philosophical need: avert disaster
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Carter 5369: Class Notes 8/27
Class focus is on ideas: role/technique of technology
mucho discussuion online
Joyce's interests: rhet/tech/ID/creating market value
literature based class w/heavy philosophy angle
Tradition of Technology Studies
Is technology human or?
With AB and/or lit review, JC cares about the intellectual work/thinking--not as muich about form
AB is a longer intro with works organized in some meaningful fashion and each piece 2-500 words (12 pieces or so)
LR is a more narrative story/frame placed around the literature which is found in pursuit of the research questions
Both have goal: what things have been written about topic X
We can submit early.
Nov 20th lit review is due at latest
Seminar paper due 12/7 at latest
Final 12/12 @ 12
Participation: 20
AB/LR: 30
Paper: 30
Final: 20
Reading responses: post on own blog and then give link at course blog
mucho discussuion online
Joyce's interests: rhet/tech/ID/creating market value
literature based class w/heavy philosophy angle
Tradition of Technology Studies
Is technology human or?
With AB and/or lit review, JC cares about the intellectual work/thinking--not as muich about form
AB is a longer intro with works organized in some meaningful fashion and each piece 2-500 words (12 pieces or so)
LR is a more narrative story/frame placed around the literature which is found in pursuit of the research questions
Both have goal: what things have been written about topic X
We can submit early.
Nov 20th lit review is due at latest
Seminar paper due 12/7 at latest
Final 12/12 @ 12
Participation: 20
AB/LR: 30
Paper: 30
Final: 20
Reading responses: post on own blog and then give link at course blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
