On 11/25/05 8:46 PM, "Erik Stolterman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For instance, Mitcham
> divides the field into four ways of understanding technology, as
> objects/artifacts, as knowledge, as activity/process, and as
> volition. Maybe this way of dividing the field of philosophy of
> technology is useful in the field of philosophy of design?
Erik,
Having read Mitcham's book and found it lacking, I would still like to
support (and amend) his "four ways" which I deem inadeguate to support a
philosophy of design. The support comes in the view that there are different
aspects of design to be addressed within any philosophy regarding it. The
inadequacy lies in his grasp of the whole. To me volition equates to
intentionality, objects/artifacts are forms of expression, activity/process
includes everything from methods and technigues to skill and performance,
and knowledge only comes with reflection on experience. He has (generally
speaking) missed the issues of definition/semantic identity, combinatorial
possibilities and valuation in his grasp of the whole. Furthermore, he has
not proposed a framework through which all aspects can be integrated, a
requirement, in my view, for a significant philosophy of design. (For
Rosan), I make the distinction that a design philosophy is a guide for
applying a philosophy of design - Form Follows Function, being an example
of a design philosophy expressed to guide designing. A philosophy of design
should accommodate every design philosophy asnd every aspect of designing.)
Best regards,
Chuck
|