Hello Mario Radovan I agree with your comments above and look forward to seeing how others respond.

Dear Mario Radovan,

Interpretations and descriptions of the meaning and role of technology by philosophers operating during the first industrial revolution, and even more so before, may slightly or significantly differ from contemporary, present interpretations of the meaning and role of technology in human life, i.e. in terms of the philosophy of technology. The reason is the huge variation in the level of technology present in individual epochs and in the context of individual technological revolutions and ongoing technological progress. In individual technological revolutions, new types of technology emerged, completely new applications of technology emerged, influencing people's lives, manufacturing and production processes, etc. Of course, in the timeless, holistic, general, intercultural, transcendental, universal aspects, etc., many truths, theories and theorems known for millennia are still relevant today. But on the other hand, philosophers and thinkers operating in a different reality of a much smaller scale of the role and significance of technology in human life and in the economy than at present could not predict everything that would happen after the next technological revolutions in the future. They could not predict the large scale of the negative impact of the development of civilization on nature, the scale of environmental pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, the impact of civilization development on nature, the scale of extinction of species of fauna and flora, climate change, etc. They could not predict the development and importance of ICT, Internet and information technologies. Industry 4.0 in the context of the everyday functioning of people.

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Mario Radovan

You have raised points worthy of attention. In my opinion, any philosophical treatment of technology must take into account many things, including:

1- The frame of reference, who owns this framework, and how to update and develop it. Here we face many questions such as: What is the purpose of the technology? For whom does the technology work?

2- Control (the iron cage for Max Weber), as technology produces many tools to control people and institutions.

3- Seduction, why get involved more using technology, even though it causes many serious negatives such as affecting the structure of thinking.

Regards

Dariusz Prokopowicz - I do not expect "predictions", but discussion and analysis of what has been going on. And I hold that there are not much of such analysis around. For example, in the last anthology of texts from the philosophy of technology which I read, there was virtually nothing about communication! I consider communication technology (and industry) essential for many things.

Good Morning Mario Radovan

As a youth(ish) I can say, I echo your questions regarding Philosophy, though I may shine a different light and offer my concern too. Currently, I am going for my Dual Major in Political Science and Philosophy and throughout my courses there is certainly been a resounding disinterest in inquiry. In a way, to your point of the Philosophy of Technology, I'd say it is now more a Faith of Technology. Such "belief" does away with all reason and holds onto dogmatic tendencies to elevate technologies usefulness and effectiveness.

Your mention of Marx is interesting as I'd say the proliferation (rightly so) of Sociological studies over Philosophical studies is seemingly synonymous with the advancement of technology and our very civilization. Philosophy, for me, is a interpersonal journey and discovery, I conjure up images of Rodin's The Thinker, as the quintessential philosopher. This is one who may sit, not just for a lifetime but for eternity, just simply thinking and pondering; how mesmerizing, what could be find within the realm of such a mind! But lo, in the time of the European Revolutions for both Liberty and Industrialization, the individual took the back seat to the collective and so Sociology seemed to replace deep Philosophical debate on the mantle of studying human intellect and reasoning.

More to your question though, I do not know where Philosophy is in the Modern World and to some degree, I do not believe it jives with technology. I have read some interesting books that speak of why to a degree, the notion of asking questions and inquiring is losing its luster. Off the top of my head I can think of two books; The Death of "Why?": The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy written by Andrea Batista Schlesinger and also Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World written by Anand Giridharadas.

The Death of Why... looks at technology and American's relentless pursuit of answers over questions. Technology allows any question to be answered instantaneously without any input from the user, mind you a few hits of the screen or yelling at Siri. We seek the simple quick and easy fix. Asking questions appears to be hard for the average person now a days, and further it seems not to provide anything fruitful. I can say with all of the knowledge I have gained, it has only made me more pessimistic and jaded than most people I know. I remember reading her book and feeling she spoke as a Soothsayer of the soon to come dystopic visions of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 or even Huxley's Brave New World.

Winners Takes All is not so much about Philosophy but it does speak to the ever going power of the new "elites" (being the owners of technology) and how their approach to solving world problems is by making them as easy as possible and a win-win for everyone. There was a chapter regarding the difference between Public Intellectuals and Thought Leaders ; the former are the critics of society and seek a deeper exploration into the why's and how's of society, the latter creates a very specific message that tends to leave out challenging the power dynamics and status quo.

I believe both of these books are helpful in a way of explaining where Philosophy has gone. Though I fear, because I am looking into Graduate School, that the Art of Philosophy is taking the same road as the language of Latin; it feels as though it is becoming a dead language. I have been making attempts to pursue this but if I may be honest, the current is not pushing people to be driven by inquiry and if anything, technology has allowed us to run our minds on autopilot.

There absolutely needs to be a reemergence of Philosophy in General and of Technology and I look forward to the future that could be with all those commenting here and the thinking we can achieve!

Sincerely,

Burke Donnelly

This is a paragraph from one of my books.

During the last hundred years, science and technology have done many wondrous things, and the world has undergone great changes. Academic philosophy has had little impact on human life and history in that period of time. Academic philosophy has been mostly a closed play with concepts, and it has not had a relevant impact on public discourse. Philosophy should explore human possibilities and point at perils that people and humanity face; it should describe and analyze reality and seek better ways of behaviour and life. In other words, philosophy should seek a new poetics of existence. This is a difficult task, but academic philosophy has hardly even tried to address this essential issue. Karl Popper is one of the rare academic philosophers who dealt with relevant issues, and he criticized his colleagues for not dealing with such issues. He says that "professional philosophy has not done too well" and that "it is in urgent need of an apologia pro vita sua, of a defence of its existence" (1992, 174). But what can the present-day academic philosophy offer as its "defence"? Not much, I am afraid. To make academic philosophy relevant for the world, its protagonists should take a look at the world around themselves and try to say something relevant about that. They should not play with exotic language and exotic (irrelevant) issues ...

Ah Mario Radovan your words speak to antiquity!

I read and see Plato's The Republic coursing through the lines; it is like divinity of the mind how such exploration is done! I have understood philosophy and by virtue academia as those who have left the cave and are searching for the true light which appears to blind most who venture out. In a way, philosophy appears to need to be disconnected and separated by our feeble attempts to create society and have it thrive.

Yet, take my words not as critical to your findings, more I agree. So I ask you, must we find those Philosopher Kings that Socrates spoke of within Plato's work?

Can such a King push for, as you state, "...a new poetics of existence [?]" For I am with you in the undertaking of how to get Philosophy more integrated into society and not so much nestled in the Ivory Towers of education.

To the first few lines, Science has certainly taken the helm when it comes to the drivers of society yet, this emergence appears to have come about to refute the dogmatic doctrines of the time after Emperor Justinian's closure of the School of Athens. Though this occurred much earlier than 100 years, as you state, it seems it has been a centuries long juggling of reason and dogmatism.

I was delighted to read this excerpt and if I may ask the name of this book? I attempt to get my hands on as many ideas and ideals as I can, lets say its our constitutions of our unique individuality / identity and I seek all inquires of such deep and profound meaning!

Thank you for sharing this and have a great day!

Sincerely,

Burke

"I ask you, must we find those Philosopher Kings that Socrates spoke of within Plato's work?"

No. In my view, philosophy should deal & speak about the reality in which we live. Truth & wisdom are obsolete concepts. Philosophers should speak about issues that matter here and know. Russell and Popper did this, but hardly anybody else from the academic world done this. Heidegger has surely not done this, except for the fact that he supported Hitler (allegedly for a limited time).

Incidentally, Plato speaks more about practical issues (education, governance) than contemporary professional philosophers do. He even tried to implement his theory (in Syracuse, if I remember well) but without much success.

The paragraf is from my book Reason and Passions; a selection from the book is on the RG; the entire book is on Amazon/Kindle

https://www.amazon.com/Reason-Passions-search-poetics-existence-ebook/dp/B07FD8Y84R/

PS: If you look the book on Amazon/Kindle (by "Look inside"), the text does not look as it should; with "Previewer" it does look as it should. It should look in the same way as the text of my book On Time and Mind (on Amazon) looks like. The two text were prepared (in Word & HTML) in the same way, but (by "Look inside") they are not shown in the same way (form). I will try to solve this problem, but I do not have time now.

Good Morning / Afternoon / Evening Mario Radovan

Firstly, I'd like to say how much I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss this with you, especially being you are from an entirely different part of the world. As we speak, such seems to allude to the very question you posed about the Philosophy of Technology and a study to the positive effects for transferring information and communicating ideas across vast spans of physical space.

To your reply, I acknowledge your statement about truth and wisdom being obsolete concepts, though I ask, do you believe that is because of the proliferation of new technology or are you speaking in terms of Academic Philosophy taking a stronger turn towards Skepticism?

I will say also, I must correct myself and thank you for our conversation detour from the original question you posed. Maybe it is my angst of youth but I have always felt the need of Philosophy to be more prominent in Politics in everyday life though as you point out, even Plato (largely the most prominent Philosophers of all time) did not have much success with practical issues.

And to that point, I did quite grasp the purpose of your first question until your last reply regarding philosophy dealing with the reality in which we live. This is both profound and fundamental because, for me, it almost allows me to pull myself back from the emotional nose dive into practical issues.

So then, if I may ask, if a Philosophy of Technology does not seem to exist, what are your views on this or more, how would one even begin to dissect philosophically what the reality of technology is?

There is a nice book «Elements of a Philosophy of Technology» by German writer Ernst Kapp. It dates from the 19th century but it offers a thesis still worth to be discussed. He claims that technical apparatus are prolongations or imitations of our organs. The development of technology is then an exposition of something organically or mentally present in human beings, which helps us to develop further our organs.

This reminds me of a similar claim raised by Clark and Chalmers nowadays that writing or computers are part of our extended mind. Memory is therefore not something private within the boundaries of our skull but something we can outsource into our environment.

The philosophy of technology will be based on its company's goals and what they want. We can start to see it cursing at Alexa or Siri and how they respond with the company's ethics and goals, even if the answer is simple. Hence, the philosophy of technology and its morals and ethics will be manipulated and controlled by corporate interest. We communicate with Alexa, Siri, and Google Home as we speak with a person. We converse with it; it knows everything about us, from our most intimate moments and detail to our diet, schedule, finances, desires, and dreams. Will these machines eventually follow the Bill of Rights, Natural Law, or Legal Positivism? For our children, these machines have censorship. However, if autonomized, these embedded commands and patterns will become the code for all devices interfering with our 1st Amendment rights and other fundamental rights we ignore to use these machines.

Hello Victor Bota

You present a very interesting concept regarding the philosophy of technology and I whole heartily agree with your propositions. I have heard that algorithms are like blank slates where the user tailors their experience though, and to your point that "... morals and ethics will be manipulated and controlled by corporate interest" so the foundational code used to build such algorithms will have already had some other interpretation from the coder viz. the companies interest. This in some way appears to allude to your conclusion that if the technology is fully automatized, how will it affect our 1st Amendment Rights.

What I found interesting in your response was how it appears in our contemporary society, private enterprise seems to be the discoverer of new ideas and ideals that pertain and absolutely effect public society at large. Though I agree with your argument, my question in response is, should this new-age Philosophy be developed by corporate interest and why is it occurring this way?

To Mario Radovan last reply, "... philosophy should deal & speak about the reality in which we live..." yet if corporate interest is creating this new ideology, are they not also building the very reality we live in through their interests? It appears to be a very compromised position and possibly flawed structure if somehow we allow corporate interest to take on such a fundamental and needed Neo-philosophy regarding technology. Mario Radovan where is academia at, if what Victor Bota states is true?

We, the Public, should take on such a project as it is a pressing issue that has not been given much attention.

Sincerely,

Burke Donnelly

Hello Thomas Läubli

Thank you for recommending this reading, I find through your replay, Ernst Kapp's idea that "...technical apparatus are prolongations or imitations of our organs" is telling. I have always seen that technology, no matter the era it was created, was made as our beasts of burdens; where once we utilized animals, now we have machines and where once we used our minds, now we use computers.

I would say that these creations may in some way "...develop further our organs" yet at the same time, I feel like it has hindered the very ability of our organs. The Mind anymore appears a frilly place where knowledge is taken for granted and truths are held more in faith than actual understanding.

I would ask, as I intrigued by your final assertion that, "[m]emory is therefore not something private within the boundaries of our skull but something we can outsource into our environment," do you mean that the mind and its capabilities can be found in either nature or some externally created machine like a computer? This premise, I have a harder time following, as I feel there is not much in existence quite like the mind and our constant pursuit to uncover its roots, will always end in some Frankensteind creation of what we think it is.

Warm Regards,

Burke Donnelly

Burke Donnelly - To Mario Radovan last reply, "... philosophy should deal & speak about the reality in which we live..." yet if corporate interest is creating this new ideology, are they not also building the very reality we live in through their interests?

Yes, they are building and shaping everything. But academic philosophy should at least speak about this. It should speak about surveillance, media manipulation, genetic engineering, ... But it does mainly not do this.

The reason I put this question is that I saw a discourse about Heidegger ... Let me mention what I wrote in this regard (in On People and Machines, on RG:

1.34 - Heidegger's discourse about the "standing reserve" of resources and the "enframing" does not tell anything new. Academic philosophy must produce something better if it wants to have any impact on the present-day public discourse and reality. Those who love the master of exotic discourse may say that I am not good enough to understand his sublime wisdom. Perhaps I am not; but let us see what Andrew Feenberg, who holds Heidegger in high esteem, says about his discourse. "Unfortunately, Heidegger's argument is developed at such a high level of abstraction [that] he literally cannot discriminate between electricity and atom bombs, agricultural techniques and the Holocaust" (2004, p. 187). "Unfortunately"? "High level of abstraction"? Why not call things with the proper name and say that Heidegger's play with exotic words is worthless? Why waste time on a thinker whose discourse "cannot discriminate between ... agricultural techniques and the Holocaust"? I consider it irresponsible to call such "thinker" a great philosopher.

1.35 - And what wisdom does Heidegger reveal to the world, even if at a high level of abstraction? "Translated out of Heidegger's ontological language", says Feenberg, "we could restate his main point as the claim that technology is a cultural form through which everything in the modern world becomes available for control" (2004, p. 185). Therefore, this was the "main point" of Heidegger's discourse about technology. But this main point is a trivial fact! People have created and used tools and devices with the aim to increase their ability to act and to control their world since the beginning of civilization. To call this "a cultural form" or not is the same. In sum, Heidegger's language is abstruse, and if someone manages to translate his discourse into something that seems understandable, it turns out that the content of his discourse is trivial and irrelevant.

Hello Burke Donnelly

I share your fears about Frankenstein (or let's say HAL 9000 by Stanley Kubrick). But we must be aware that we are already connected with computers. I don't mean necessarily the type of Cyborg that Professor Kevin Warwick wants to be. He has implanted a chip in his arm in order to control doors or lights. Such devices could also help Parkinson or epilepsy patients. There are always positive and negative consequences of technology. My concern wasn't so much ethics because the philosophy of technology and ethics are two different fields.

I'm talking about the extension of the mind. Even though Andy Clark, which I mentioned, has also written a book about cyborgs, the extended mind thesis tries just to be factual about what we are already doing. Writing was a first technology in order to outsource our thinking. (Remember that Platon in his «Phaidros» was at odds with written letters since knowledge was for him better experienced through oral communication.) Calculators, from the abacus to calculating machines, were also such devices. Step by step, we could delegate our brain acrobatics to machines. But our memory depends also more from computers. This has an impact on our intelligence.

The more we delegate our capacities to machines, the less we use them ourselves. This doesn't mean that we are getting dumber if we use our extensions intelligently. I would talk then of cooperative intelligence. You could view such an interplay between man and machine as an internal act of your extended mind. But you could also argue that we are getting dumber (the Flynn effect reversed) insofar most people won't become smarter if they use computers just for distraction.

But I was talking too much about computers. I just want to add that your mind is also extended into the physical world if you have a certain order in your flat or office. You arrange things in order to remind you of something. You put them on a certain place if they have to be handled first. You have forgotten them in your sleep but when you look at them the next morning, you are reminded by the things itself that you have to deal with them. This is how you should understand the extended mind thesis. This is a technology, too, and of course, it doesn't concern only the things but also the social sphere. Your fellow creatures will remind you of certain things as well. So, I believe myself that the Cartesian picture of the mind is misguided. (You could here also add cognitivists like Fodor or Chomsky.) Our mind does not end at the borders of our body.

Hello Mario Radovan

I don't know if I can help you to understand Heidegger in the German original and I'm just citing him from my memory. I think he says something right about the Gestell (shelves, frame), which will verstellen (adjust, disguise) something. Technology places something new into our habits of daily life. Let's say, you get used to your new mobile phone. This is something like a Gestell (frame) in your life since it affects your daily life. But through the adjustment, you won't question your new habits anymore. You are just doing it. In «Time and Being», those habits were named the Man (the They). This is something impersonal and turns you away from the Eigentlichkeit (authenticity). In using your mobile phone, you are torn away from possibilities, which are more existential (or perhaps nearer to nature). You could cease to visit your friends personally. You keep distance to them due to your mobile phone. So, your new habit is not only an adjustment but also a disguise of your self. And this happens of course to the whole society when a new technology is established.

If you want to read a book in a much clearer language by a Heidegger pupil on Technoethics, I recommend you Hans Jonas and his «The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age».

August Compt,Lakatos,Kuhn& few other Philosophers of Science gave insights into the ways & path that science through technology has impacted the world.In recent times, philosophical investigations on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics,etc is gaining global attention.Philosophers need to make the enterprise serve the concrete needs of mankind as recommended by Heidegger & this could be only achieved by interrogating the moral underpinnings of technological innovations on human experience & existential aspirations

Phillips Olubiyi - Correct; the problem, in my view, is that academic philosophy is usually late. It prefers to deal with "past masters" than with the current reality. This is the main reason why I did not become a professional philosopher. I thought logic at Philosophy, but I remained professionally in Informatics (computer science).

Regarding Heidegger, I consider him a great harm for philosophy. I spent a lot of time studying hid Being and Time and Metaphysics (some thirty years ago). My conclusion has been that he did not say anything that I could consider (1) understandable, (2) correct, (3) relevant, and (4) new at the same time.

Thomas Läubli - thank you, but I do not deal with Heidegger any more. Let me mention my last remark about the Master (in my book On People and Machines).

Heidegger allegedly wrote his famous book Being and Time in his hut in the woods; I read that book in my hut in the woods, but I did not find anything worthy in it. I did not find in Heidegger's writings anything that I could consider (1) understandable, (2) correct, (3) relevant and (4) new. His famous discourse about "being-in-the-world" can be reduced to several trivial and obvious facts, adorned with a huge amount of mystic or empty claims. Hubert Dreyfus, an expert in Heidegger's peculiar language, who holds the master in high esteem, admits that there are serious problems in Heidegger's discourse. Dreyfus considers some problems in Being and Time "so serious as to block any consistent reading" (p. viii). "The discussion of spatiality is one of the most difficult in Being and Time, not because it is deeper than any other discussion but because it is fundamentally confused" (p. 129). Heidegger's famous discourse about "falling" is also "confusing" (p. 225), and "there seems to be an inconsistency in Heidegger's account of the self" (p. 239). There is a sort of poetical charm in Heidegger's peculiar language, which made me spend a lot of time trying to discern some relevant content in his discourse, but I did not find it and I do not think there is anything of that kind in his narrative. If philosophy wants to be relevant in the present-day world, it must get rid of mystical poets and try to tell something better.

Sir,I understand your position most perfectly.Perhaps many of us would have " abandoned" the philosophical enterprise but for the contribution of our fire runners in the field.In Nigeria,most undergrads find it difficult to digest& interprete what the masters like Heiddeggar was saying.Beyond " Ethics" few of my contemporaries back the really enjoyed what Philosophers of the last generation were trying to teach.But during my Post- Graduate studies@ the University of Lagos, Nigeria,I became more interested in some of these esoteric writings thanks to great scholars like Prof.Jim Unah,who helped dymystified Heiddeggars works,Dr. Ndubuisi,who broke down Kuhn, Lakatos & Feyenoored's writings,Dr.Mrs.Kehinde,who made reading of Plato's works more digest able & Prof.Anele who made it possible for us back then to appreciate philosophy better.I think this sort of tradition should be transnational in our Universities as a way of re- evaluating our world from philosophical perspectives

Phillips Olubiyi - I mostly agree with what you say. My basic position is that philosophy should speak about current issues (with the knowledge of past visions), and in it should speak in a clear way. I appreciate and love to read people like Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper. On the other hand, Heidegger and people who speak like him are mystics who do not have anything relevant to say; they are not followers of Heraclites, Protagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, whom I all appreciate.

I recommend the works of Alfred Nordmann .

Anna Klassen - Thank you! Titles of the publications look interesting & promising.

The most cogent philosopher of technology is the recently deceased Bernard Stiegler. His Technics and Time (1-3) is a masterwork. I particularly enjoy his writings on Caring.

If you don't read French, his best translator and commentator is Daniel Ross.

In my opinion, the philosophy of cognition, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of research, the philosophy of technology, the philosophy of civilization, etc., in its essence, in many respects, may be relevant since antiquity. It is similar with the philosophy of technology, but only in a very general sense, in a transcendental and holistic sense. However, when we take into account the individual four technological revolutions developing from the seventeenth century to the present, and especially the present fourth technological revolution consisting, inter alia, on the development of various technologies, Industry 4.0 is the concepts of the philosophy of technology known to us for many centuries, should be updated with the issues of determinants of technology development Industry 4.0 and ecotechnology, eco-innovation in order to achieve the goals of sustainable development, increasing pro-environmental awareness, repairing the negative effects of civilization development, increasing the importance of environmental social responsibility (ecological), increasing the scale of pro-ecological reforms of implementing ecotechnology into economic processes, etc. in order to save the biosphere and climate of the planet Earth in the 21st century.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Mario Radovan you may be very interested in the work of Yuk Hui, who takes up some of the concepts of Stiegler, but updates them and thinks through an Eastern rather than a Western lens. Most of his work has been released in the last ten years, so much more recent than Heidegger, Marx, etc! :-)

To my above answer, I would like to add that the philosophy of technology should help in indicating the direction of technology development and its importance in the development of civilization. Besides, within the history of philosophical thought, it is the rapid technological progress that is taking place that may influence the formation of certain new directions within the aforementioned history of philosophical thought. Currently, we live in the period of the fourth technological revolution dominated by the development of ICT information technologies of advanced, multi-criteria, more and more intelligent processing of large sets of information and data, including Industry 4.0 technology, which include robotics, artificial intelligence, learning machines, blockchain, additive manifacturing, Big Data Analytics, computing in the cloud, Internet of Things, augmented and virtual reality, etc. Each previous technological revolution was determined by the development of other then new technologies and therefore certain new directions and trends in the history of philosophical thought could change in the past .

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

"... the philosophy of technology should help in indicating the direction of technology development and its importance in the development of civilization" - Correct; but I have an impression that it does not deal with such issues. It is "scholastically" oriented rather, and it does not deal much with real issues of the real world.

Let me mention a paragraph from my book On People and Machines. ... Contemporary philosophy deals with the conceptual articulation of the "general mood of the time", but it has lost the ability to make a relevant impact on the course of events in the world, says Hannah Arendt (p. 358). ... Such claims are intended as criticism of the present state of academic philosophy, but the situation is worse than that. The problem is not in the fact that philosophy does not have the power to steer events, but in the fact that academic philosophy does not deal with socially relevant issues. ... Academic philosophy is scholastic, as it has always been, and it avoids issues from the real world, as scholastic philosophy has always done.

There is an interesting discussion between Yuk Hui and Pieter Lemmens recently (2021) published. Available at Article Landscapes of Technological Thoughts in advance: A Dialogue ...

Johan Herholdt - Thank you!

The philosophy of technology, I make the bold to say, has been included in Algorithmic principles. For example, technology shall be deemed some patterns or modules, made relatively efficiently but still arbitrarily, resembling institutions, values, beliefs, ideas, science or other kinds of knowledge, and hence innovating endlessly. One must conclude the whole world in the halfway of cognition, answering those urgent problems arising from actions, therefore, technology as a makeshift emerges which guides current actions.

Philosophy of technology studies the character of technology and its relations to society. It has various branches, focusing for instance on the ethics of technology, on the relations between science and technology, on human-technology relations, or the political dimensions of technology.