Dear Eduardo and others

please noted that i know very little of Philosophy of Technology and Philosophy
of Technics...as a matter of fact, it is the first time I have heard of
Philosopy of Technics. (in capital...that is as a field of study)....

maybe someone can help me/us here by giving some backgrounds, as Eduardo's
characterizations about these two fields seem not so clear to me, nor sit so
well with my little understanding of Philosophy of Technology.

firstly, i thought Heidegger has been considered as the 'founder' of classical
Philosophy of Technology. (Being and Time) but Eduardo seems to be sayingthat
Heidegger had more to do with Philosophy of Technics...help please!

secondly, i thought Philosophy of Technology is quite an established
field...but Eduardo seems to be saying it is redundant? ...help again please.

and I won't know what a Technosophy is. help!

Rosan



Eduardo Corte Real wrote:

> Rosan and David(Sless):
>
> The problem seems to be that when you get back to root one and the other you
> will find, inevitably, for technology, Science and the scientific object and
> for Technics you will came across with the nature of the Technical object
> (artistic, usefull etc regardless of scientific origin).
> The bad thing about this is, when you speak about Philosophy of Technics,
> you can as much escape Heidegger as a Spanish heretic could escape the
> Spanish Inquisition in sixteenth century Spain.
> Another problem with Philosophy of Technology is that it seems a bit
> redundant. We don't speak of a Philosophy of Biology but about Philosophy of
> Life.
> I think that what you are driving at is towards an Technosophy. Sapientia,
> Sophia of Tecnics seem to be more peacefull and certainly less demanding.
> By the way, did you read "Wittgenstein's Poker: The story of a Ten-Minute
> Argument Between Two Great Philosophers" by David Edmonds and John Eidinow ?
> Problems or riddles ?...
> I think David have been giving a very good account about what designosophy
> could be.
> His plea for clarity is certainly something within our range.
>
> Best,
>
> Eduardo