Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.

I have elsewhere argued that contemporary philosophy of technology has arisen and grown out of the ‘ praxis ’ traditions, particularly those of a concretist orientation, and thus stand in contrast to the earlier, dominant strands of a theoretically biased philosophy of science. And, even if much contemporary philosophy of science has been late to arrive at such praxis phenomena as experiment, instrumentation and technologization, in science, it, too, has begun to take a similar direction. This has some implication for the role of the philosopher of technology or of as current coin would have it.

First, there is some degree to which the philosopher of technology must ≪ go native ≫, by this I mean become more than a distant observer, to become an informed . Without this participant-observation, the philosopher could never deal with the developmental phases of technologies, which I have argued are as, if not more, important than the response phases which deal with already extant technologies and their effects.

Second, a praxis orientation is necessarily more ‘pragmatic’ and area or regionally focused than a high altitude and general theory might be. I see nothing wrong with focused specialization directed towards the various areas of the technologies of the times.

Third, as indicated above, a classical role for philosophers of technology remains conceptual in the sense of re-conceiving or redescribing phenomena. In this sense one positive feature arising from postmodern sensibility is the appreciation for alternative frameworks and the ≪ fusing of horizons ≫ in a Gadamerian fashion.

Finally, philosophy of technology is necessarily concretist or ‘ materially ’ oriented insofar as the technologies operate materially at whatever level. Such material operations display patterned, structured, and while multistable, sets of possibilities. It is this structure that philosophers may examine and analyse.

All of this characterizes a certain style of philosophical approach which is beginning to show itself in the new sub-field of the philosophies of technology.