Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 251–261 | Cite as

Let’s Make Things Better: A Reply to My Readers

  • Peter-Paul VerbeekEmail author
Book Review Essay

Abstract

This article is a reply to the three reviews of my book What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on Technology, Agency, and Design (Verbeek 2005) in this symposium. It discusses the remarks made by the reviewers along five lines. The first is methodological and concerns the question of how to develop a philosophical approach to technology. The second line discusses the philosophical orientation of the book, and the relations between analytic and continental approaches. Third, I will discuss the metaphysical aspects of the book, in particular the nature and value of the non-modernist approach it aims to set out. Fourth, I will discuss the social and political relevance of the book. Fifth, this will bring me to some concluding remarks about how the postphenomenological perspective developed in the book relates to liberalism, focusing on its suggestions to deliberately design our material environment in terms of mediation.

Keywords

Philosophy of technology Ethics of technology Mediation Liberalism Modernity 

References

  1. de Vries, G. (1993). Gerede twijfel: Over de rol van de medische ethiek in Nederland. Amsterdam: De Balie.Google Scholar
  2. Heidegger, M. (1951). Das Ding. In Vorträge und Aufsätze. Pfullingen: Neske.Google Scholar
  3. Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik—or how to make things public. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 4–31). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Laurier, E., & Philo, C. (1999). X-morphising: Review essay of Bruno Latour’s Aramis or the love of technology. Environment and Planning A, 13(6), 1047–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Sloterdijk, P. (1999). Regeln für den Menschenpark. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Verbeek, P. P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Verbeek, P. P. (2006a). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Verbeek, P. P. (2006b). The morality of things: A postphenomenological inquiry. In E. Selinger (Ed.), Postphenomenology: A critical companion to Ihde. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Verbeek, P. P., & Slob, A. (Eds.). (2006). User behavior and technology design: Shaping sustainable relations between consumers and technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations