Dear all, 

Those into Philosophy-Design relationships, might be interested in/familiar
with (part of) the work of Peter-Paul Verbeek (Prof of Philosophy of
Technology, Univ Twente, Netherlands). Have a browse through his papers at
http://utwente.academia.edu/PeterPaulVerbeek, but especially his book " What
Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design (Penn
State University Press, 2005)" could be of your interest.

Ferrie


-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charles
Burnette
Sent: 23 November 2011 13:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Philosophy and Design Thinking

Jeff,
Thank you very much for this thoughtful response to my paper. The paper is
an extension of my Theory of Design Thinking and a search for broader,
deeper, and better understanding of design thinking and its potentials.
Everything I write now is an exploration of the theory. I really appreciate
your response to Ken who seems caught in a "Referential" mode of thought and
unable to switch to a "Formative" one. I write with a focus on new
expression not academic rigor, from the design stance, not the Empirical
stance. I want people to critique my proposal based on what it is, not what
it isn't yet trying to be.

Thanks  again,
Chuck

On Nov 13, 2011, at 1:12 AM, jeffrey chan wrote:

> Dear Chuck,
> Thank you for sharing your paper on this forum. I enjoyed your content
direction as well as the scope of this paper. It is an ambitious paper which
I will have to re-read a few more times to understand better. 
> I think insofar as there is nothing similar in nature out there, I concur
based on the little that I know as far as the ambition and intentions of
this paper are concerned. You are trying to build a philosophy of design
thinking by interrogating the different fundamental categories that relate
to design thinking. This paper finds some resonance in Simon's seminal work;
however, Simon was less interested in philosophy than in design cognition
and also by extent, design epistemology. Recently a book titled, Philosophy
for Architects was published. I read it and instead of relating to these
fundamental categories, the author elected to explicate the relationship of
philosophy to architecture through the general (and constructed) history of
philosophy and ideas instead. I think both approaches (i.e., explicative
methods) are useful but each is useful in different ways. While Mitrovic's
(the author) attempt aims for a comprehensive coverage, your attempt may be
more appropriate for building a systemic body of categories in design
thinking. As a final note on literature for now, Rittel's work has been
immensely influential, though underdeveloped from a cognitive and
principal-agent relationship, on the intentionality of agents participating
within a complex design project.  
> But philosophy in my own weighted opinion has to do with the questioning
of fundamental categories, and this is something which neither your attempt
nor Mitrovic's work sees as the paramount goal. In this way, while both work
are capable of describing design (thinking), they cannot yet transform
(design) thinking, which is always the task of philosophy. 
> I have always wondered why not many more philosophers are interested in
the problems of design, which pose a peculiar allure and challenge for
philosophy. This may be because design does not fall into any of the three
traditional branches of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics and epistemology)
but however, design has to concede to all three at once in any reasonable
manifestation. Furthermore, design goes beyond thinking into doing; and the
kind of thinking that philosophers admit to is really a form of
metacognition but the kind of thinking designers are engaged in is communal,
distributed and practical. In other words, if philosophical thinking is
generally an inward form of thinking, design thinking is directed outwards.
That said, professional philosopher such as Ian Thompson in environmental
ethics is doing some interesting work to bridge applied ethics with
landscape architecture. But it remains to be seen how this form of work can
instruct design thinking and doing. In the history of philosophy, I cannot
think of anyone except for Kant who has tried to surmount the ambitions of
design thinking in his systemic lifework in philosophy (i.e., what ought I
do?). 
> If I may add by way of suggestions for this paper, I think designers are
not only concerned with rules, but also with maxims and imperatives as well.
"Less is a bore" and such statements are in fact maxims, and "do not harm
the public interest" is a form of imperatives. There are however very few
instances of 'rules'--which analytic philosophers tend to focus on--in
design. After all, even though design maintains a form of language it does
not obey the syntax of language--an error the postmodernists committed. We
will have to wait for your next paper on ethics in design on this! In my own
experience as a designer, it is the tension between imperatives and maxims
(in whatever form) that elicited the philosophical issues in design--where
both are 'right' or appropriate to some degree. Thus insofar as describing a
general system is vital and important, its pragmatic contributions must
however reside in supporting the practical, and incidentally, the
philosophical task of a designer.  
> As a last note, I think including more (concrete) examples in design would
help to explicate many of these abstract issues in design. 
> Again, many thanks for this instructive paper that stimulated my own
design thinking on a Sunday morning! 
> Best,
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:07:44 -0500
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Philosophy and Design Thinking
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> Those of you  interested in how philosophy might inform design thinking
may find the paper "Philosophical Modes in Design Thinking" now available at
www.independent.academia.edu/CharlesBurnette/papers worthwhile - there isn't
much of a similar nature out there that I know of. I'd appreciate your
comments and references.
>> 
>> Chuck Burnette
>