Dear All:
Andrews is completly right on the most important part of what his points
out. I've experiencienced in Brasil something like the European/North
America's scientific echo, and I posted in particular to Ken, that I think
the Design Society (and PHD) is very envolved with positivist fundamentals.
Just take a look on what is called design philosophy in the last number of
Design Studies Journal and maybe you could agree with me.
Really I think we need a philosophy, but that do not means searching for a
definition, a theory or something related. We have to discuss, not to
validate. It is not necessary to find a scientific answer to our questions.
We have to stop of defining design in traditional term (psycologisms,
scientific models etc)
We need really a deep analysis, out of instrumental capitalism and their
rules for eficience; we need a ethic, a moral, a politic, a metaphysic; we
need to breakdown the quotidian and start to extract design from the
everyday (common people don't design?).
We need descriptions and words, and I think we don't find it under the
scientific effort.
We need philosophers!
For example, before asking for timeless objects, why we have not asked for
time: what time we are considering? Is it a physical one? Why? (that is only
to ilustrate my point of view, I'm not envolved in the discussion)
DSc. José Aravena
|