Dear Sanjoy and Terry,
Thank you for your very illuminating responses to my post on the
Philosophy of Design.
====
To Sanjoy:
Yes, I am aware of the difference between "Philosophy of Design" (PoD)
and "Design Philosophy" (a web search using the latter will even show
that it is used in many absolutely non-philosophical contexts of
commercial advertising). And of course we should stick to the former as
our *terminus technicus*, in analogy to common philosophical practice --
as also recommended by Terry.
It was a relief to me to learn that the UCI proposal has not ignored the
PoD, even though it does not loom large in the proposal. Would it be a
good idea to *collect* the PoD-stuff into a more conspicuous single
subject, course, or series of courses, I wonder? (It might be combined
with an introduction to the philosophy of science, research methodology,
and other related topics, if that is preferable to PoD in a "pure" form.)
I agree that, prima facie, design education would (should) be problem
(project) oriented to a considerable degree. What I am not so sure about
is that such "Problem Based Learning" (PBL) is "a direct critique of
PoD" and vice versa. To me PoD and PBL seem somewhat analogous to
Shoen's Reflection and (in) Action, albeit at a coarser level of
granularity. Without some PBL-experience, the PoD will not make much
sense to a student of design; but having some familiarity with PoD, he
or she may be able to make more sense of PBL than otherwise.
So, although PoD, if introduced too abruptly or out-of-context, may seem
rather "hairy" to young students, I think it might be worth a thought or
two to integrate it throughout the curriculum; rather than hiding it
away for the graduate or PhD level only. (This could be done both by
integrating it with other subjects, or "distilling" it into courses at
various levels of difficulty.)
Whether or not "philosophical contemplations [can] be devoid of culture
and world view", as you ask, I don't know. I should think it depends on
the nature of the specific contemplations in question. Some such
contemplations seem remarkably persistent over the centuries: say, the
problem of universals, the problem of flux, and the problem of how to
explain causality. I think that if they had been highly dependent on
culture, they would have vanished a culture changed. But I am not
denying that other philosophical questions may much more "local" to a
specific cultural setting (ethics of bio-tech, say), and just as challenging.
I have no problems with your closing remark about PoD being much larger
in scope than my 7 sample questions suggested. (Recall that they were
offered as nothing but a *sample*.) As for the Eastern varieties of PoD,
I must confess that I'm as impressed by your list of exotic names, as
I'm ignorant about their meanings. Ken has asked me to post a small
bibliography of mine on the PoD; which I intend to do once I have
brushed it up a little. It would be highly interesting if you could send
a little something, too, about the literature on Eastern PoD!
====
To all of you:
Who knows, others may have further contributions to make, and we may end
up with enough seed material to create a PoD web site? (Just an idea.)
Along with the bibliography, we (someone) might compile a
"problemography" as well; a list of good intriguing problems of PoD;
i.e. worthwhile problems about the nature of design (and related mattes)
which cannot be answered empirically but only philosophically. (Just
another idea.)
====
To Terry:
... which brings me to your post of Dec. 3rd: Your "appropriate
questions in Philosophy of Design" are precisely the kind of questions I
have in mind for such a "problemography". I can subscribe to each and
every point you make in your post.
====
Best wishes
Per
--
* Per Galle
*
* Mosevangen 18
* DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark
*
* (+45) 45 82 81 05
|