The homo poieticus and the bridge between physis and techne

Federica RussoPhilosophy, Kent

2

Overview

Physis and techne in the digital era

The homo poieticus in the e-nvironment

The homo poieticusAs technoscientistAs philosopher

Ethics meets epistemology?

3

PHYSIS AND TECHNEIN THE DIGITAL ERA

4

Physis: nature and reality

Techne: practical science and creation of artefacts

Inforgs: informational organisms We, intelligent humans. Intelligent engineered artefacts

Infosphere: informational environmentThe whole space of possible information, including Nature.

5

The digital revolution

The fourth revolution (Floridi 2008, 2009)

We, humans, are inforgs in the infosphere

A change in the interaction with the external world

and with ourselves

A revitalisation of the tension between physis and techne

A radical change in our role as ethical agents

6

Physis and techne

Technology makes a revolution in the tools to acquire knowledge of the world

Intervening on Nature grants us epistemic access to it

Opening of new possibilities for the creation of artefacts

Pure science is not the privileged lieu of knowledge anymore

Technoscience: a noetic and poietic aspect on a par

7

THE HOMO POIETICUSIN THE E-NVIRONMENT

8

New environment, new ethics

Digital revolution creates poietically-enabling environment

A new ethical agent: homo poieticusMore than just faber and oeconomicus

A maker: of the situation he’s in, of the action he takes

Egopoietic, sociopoietic, ecopoietic projects

A new ethical approach: constructionist ethicsCopes with the poietic skills of the agent

Reduces ‘moral luck’

9

Constructionist ethics

• Homo poieticus creates new situations liable of moral judgment

• Agents are also evaluated for the process that led to the situation they are in

Situated action ethics

• Agents happen to be in some situation liable of moral judgement

• Agents are evaluated for the goodness or consequences of their actions.No evaluation of how agents got in the situation they are in

10

Floridi argues

• The digital dimension of the fourth revolution revitalise the tensions between physis and techne

• In the infosphere, man creates the situations he is in. We therefore need a concept of homo poeiticus and a constructionist ethics

Here I argue

• Tensions between physis and techne are revitalised because the fourth revolution is a technological revolution (rather than digital).

• The homo poieticus is not just the ethical agent, but also the technoscientist and the philosopher

11

THE HOMO POIETICUS:THE TECHNOSCIENTIST

12

From science to technoscience

The ‘Aristotelian’ scientist• Knowledge by passive

observation of Nature• Little, auxiliary role of

experimentation

• Science is episteme, it has noetic goals

The ‘Baconian’ scientist• Knowledge by active

interaction with Nature• Primary role of

experimentation: the scientist is a ‘maker’, science is ‘scientia operativa’

• Science is (also) techne, it has (also) poietic goals

13

Technoscientist as a maker

Making craftsE.g.: computers, nuclear weapons, medical devices …

14

Technoscientist as a maker

Making knowledge

Floridi’s constructionist epistemology

Knowledge is the designing and modelling of reality

We lost our privileged location in the physical and biological realms

(Copernican and Darwinian revolutions)

But we are still in a position to claim our centrality in the construction of knowledge of those realms

15

Technoscientist as a maker

Making knowledge through instruments

A ‘constructionist choir’ (Ihde, Bunge, Heidegger):

Instruments allow us to know beyond the macro world

Instrumental attitude justified by obtained ‘practical’ results (Ding an sich vs Ding für uns)

Both techne and episteme ‘reveal’ or ‘disclose’ some truth, the difference lying in what and how they reveal

16

THE HOMO POIETICUS:THE PHILOSOPHER

17

The philosopher as a maker

Making and using thought and ideas

Floridi: philosophy as conceptual engineeringNot just or only a logico-mathematical procedure

But poiesis of thoughts and ideas – conceptual constructionism

Deleuze & Guattari: philosophers create conceptsPhilosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication

Philosophy finds new concepts that explain the world

As the world changes, so concepts do

18

ETHICS MEETS EPISTEMOLOGY?

19

Many virtues of the homo poieticus

Embodies many aspects of human ‘making’ activities:

Creation of situations liable to be morally assessed

Creation of crafts and knowledge

Creation of (philosophical) concepts

The homo poieticus can see technology

as knowledge and as creation of artefacts

20

Physis and techne reconciled

Techne is an opportunity for the agent

To better know and act upon the world around

To ask new questions with respect to ‘classical’ epistemology

21

From technologyto ethical evaluation

Ethical evaluation

‘Action of making’ or ‘Process of using’

The purpose of the technological artefactsmakes it liable to ethical evaluation

What ethical evaluation?New environments, new roles, new ethics

A constructionist ethics

22

Ethics meets epistemology

Questions and worries about technology depend onwhat we know about emergent spaces of possibilities

What to do depends on what we know

A constructionist epistemology for a constructionist ethics

23

TO SUM UP AND CONCLUDE

24

The homo poieticus:ethical agent, technoscientist and philosopher

The digital revolution urges us to rethinkthe role of the ethical agent and of the ethical theory

The homo poieticus and constructionist ethics

The digital technological revolution revitalisesthe tensions between physis and techne

The tension is solved through a homo poieticusthat creates crafts, knowledge and concepts

A constructionist ethics is supported bya constructionist epistemology.