Đối tượng và can thiệp: một lý thuyết về sự tồn tại của chức năng đối tượng

Synthese - Tập 202 - Trang 1-28 - 2023
Clint Hurshman1
1University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA

Tóm tắt

Bài báo này trình bày một lý thuyết mới về chức năng của các đối tượng, dựa trên các mô hình chức năng xã hội dựa vào sự tồn tại, theo đó chức năng của một đối tượng bao gồm những tác động của nó góp phần vào sự tồn tại của loại hình của nó. Đầu tiên, bài báo lập luận rằng chức năng của đối tượng có một "nhiệm vụ can thiệp" chưa được chú ý: việc gán chức năng có những tác động đến cách mà người dùng có lý do để sử dụng công nghệ, và cách mà họ có lý do để can thiệp khi công nghệ có những tác động không mong muốn. Sau đó, bài báo lập luận rằng các cách mà người dùng có lý do để sử dụng công nghệ và can thiệp được thông tin bởi các điều kiện tồn tại hiện tại của các loại đối tượng. Do đó, việc kết hợp những điều kiện tồn tại này vào chức năng của các đối tượng là hữu ích. Bằng cách tập trung vào sự nhúng xã hội và chính trị của các đối tượng, lý thuyết này cũng cho phép có những liên kết hữu ích giữa lý thuyết về đối tượng, triết học chính trị về công nghệ, và tài liệu về chức năng trong triết học khoa học xã hội.

Từ khóa

#chức năng đối tượng #sự tồn tại #can thiệp #công nghệ #triết học chính trị

Tài liệu tham khảo

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Books. Bhattacharyya, D., & Subramaniam, B. (2020). Technofascism in India. n+1. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.nplusonemag.com/online-only/online-only/technofascism-in-india/. Bigelow, J. (1998). Functionalism in social science. In The Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/functionalism-in-social-science/v-1. Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1987). Functions. Journal of Philosophy, 84(4), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027157 Bijker, W., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. Bijker, T. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004 Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1988). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press. Davis, J. L. (2020). How artifacts afford: The power and politics of everyday things. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11967.001.0001 Dipert, R. (1993). Artifacts, art works, and agency. Temple University Press. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist199578218 Dipert, R. (1995). Some issues in the theory of artifacts: Defining ‘artifact’ and related notions. The Monist, 78(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist199578218 Durkheim, E. (1948). The elementary forms of religious life. Free Press. Elder, C. (2007). On the place of artifacts in ontology. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Theories of artifacts and their representation (pp. 33–51). Oxford University Press. Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens. Cambridge University Press. Evnine, S. J. (2016). Making objects and events: A hylomorphic theory of artifacts, actions, and organisms. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198779674.001.0001 Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. Routledge. Franssen, M. (2006). The normativity of artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.006 Franssen, M., Kroes, P., Reydon, T. A. C., & Vermaas, P. E. (2014). Artefact kinds: Ontology and the human-made world. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00801-1 Garson, J. (2010). Schizophrenia and the dysfunctional brain. Journal of Cognitive Science, 11, 215–246. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2010.11.2.215 Garson, J. (2019). What biological functions are and why they matter. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108560764 Garson, J. (2022). Madness: A philosophical exploration. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197613832.001.0001 Hilpinen, R. (1993). Authors and artifacts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93, 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/93.1.155 Holm, S. (2017). The problem of phantom functions. Erkenntnis, 82(1), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9814-x Houkes, W. (2006). Knowledge of artefact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.011 Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. (2004). Actions versus functions: A plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. The Monist, 87(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist20048712 Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. (2010). Technical Functions: On the use and design of artefacts (Vol. 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3900-2 Justus, J. (2008). Complexity, diversity, and stability. In S. Sahotra & A. Plutynski (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of biology. (Vol. 90). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696590.ch18 Khan, A., & Perrigo, B. (2020). What Life Is Like Inside the World's Longest Lockdown. Time. https://time.com/5832256/kashmir-lockdown-coronavirus/ Lachney, M., & Dotson, T. (2018). Epistemological Luddism: Reinvigorating a concept for action in 21st century sociotechnical struggles. Social Epistemology, 32(4), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1476603 Latour, B. (1990). Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03350.x McLaughlin, P. (2000). What functions explain: Functional explanation and self-reproducing systems. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511498510 Merton, R. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Free Press. Millikan, R. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001 Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and democratic technics. Technology and Culture, 5(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/3101118 Naoe, K. (2008). Design culture and acceptable risk. In P. E. Vermaas, P. Kroes, A. Light, & S. Moore (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (pp. 119–130). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6591-0_9 Neander, K. (1991). Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defense. Philosophy of Science, 58(2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.1086/289610 Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic Books. Odling-Smee, F., Laland, K., & Feldman, M. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution (MPB-37). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400847266 Papineau, D. (1984). Representation and explanation. Philosophy of Science, 51(4), 550–572. https://doi.org/10.1086/289205 Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Free Press. Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system: Some of its functions in American society. Harvard Educational Review, 29(4), 297–318. Perlman, M. (2009). Changing the mission of theories of teleology: DOs and DON’Ts for thinking about function. In U. Krohs & P. Kroes (Eds.), Functions in biological and artificial worlds: Comparative philosophical perspectives (pp. 17–36). MIT press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262113212.003.0002 Pettit, P. (1996). Functional explanation and virtual selection. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47(2), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/47.2.291 Pettit, P. (2007). Resilience as the explanandum of social theory. In I. Shapiro & S. Bedi (Eds.), Political contingency: Studying the unexpected, the accidental, and the unforeseen (pp. 79–96). New York University Press. Preston, B. (1998). Why is a wing like a spoon? A pluralist theory of function. The Journal of Philosophy, 95(5), 215–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2564689 Preston, B. (2009). Philosophical theories of artifact function. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 213–233). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-51667-1.50013-6 Preston, B. (2013). A philosophy of material culture: Action, function, and mind. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203069844 Scheele, M. (2006). Function and use of technical artefacts: Social conditions of function ascription. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.004 Schulz, A. W. (2020). Structure, evidence, and heuristic: Evolutionary biology, economics, and the philosophy of their relationship. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003030249 Schulz, A. W. (2021). What’s the point? A presentist social functionalist account of institutional purpose. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 52(1–2), 53–80. Van Eck, D., & Weber, E. (2014). Function ascription and explanation: Elaborating an explanatory utility desideratum for ascriptions of technical functions. Erkenntnis, 79(6), 1367–1389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9605-1 Vermaas, P. E., & Houkes, W. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artefacts: A challenge to etiological accounts of functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54(2), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/54.2.261 Walsh, D. M., & Ariew, A. (1996). A taxonomy of functions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), 493–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1996.10717464 Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. Wouters, A. (1995). Viability explanation. Biology and Philosophy, 10(4), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00857593 Wright, L. (1976). Teleological explanations: An etiological analysis of goals and functions. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520333697 Ziman, J. (2000). Technological innovation as an evolutionary process. Cambridge University Press.