Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 7–29

Artifact Dualism, Materiality, and the Hard Problem of Ontology: Some Critical Remarks on the Dual Nature of Technical Artifacts Program

Research Article


This paper critically examines the forays into metaphysics of The Dual Nature of Technical Artifacts Program (henceforth, DNP). I argue that the work of DNP is a valuable contribution to the epistemology of certain aspects of artifact design and use, but that it fails to advance a persuasive metaphysic. A central problem is that DNP approaches ontology from within a functionalist framework that is mainly concerned with ascriptions and justified beliefs. Thus, the materiality of artifacts emerges only as the external conditions of realizability of function ascription. The work of DNP has a strong programmatic aspect and much of its foray into metaphysics is tentative, so the intent of my argument is partly synthetic: to sum up these issues as they are presented in the literature and highlight some recognized problems. But I also go beyond that, suggesting that these problems are foundational, arising from the very way in which DNP poses the question of artifact metaphysics. Although it sets out to incorporate objective aspects of technology, DNP places a strong focus on the intentional side of the purported matter-mind duality, bracketing off materiality in an irretrievable manner. Thus, some of the advantages of dualism are lost. I claim that DNP is dualistic, not merely based on “duality”, but that its version of dualism does not appropriately account for the material “nature” of artifacts. The paper ends by suggesting some correctives and alternatives to Dual Nature theory.


Ontology of artifacts Ontology of systems Dual nature theory Intentionalism Materiality 


  1. Arthur, B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99, 116–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Washington: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, L. R. (1999). Unity without identity: a new look at material constitution. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 144–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, L. R. (2004). The ontology of artifacts. Philosophical Explorations, 7(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, L. R. (2006). On the twofold nature of artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 132–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnet, B. & Eldredge, N. (2004). Material cultural evolution: An interview with Niles Eldredge. Fibreculture 3. Accessed on 11th November 2007.
  7. Burry, M. (2005). Homo faber. Architectural Design, 75(4), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrara, M., & Vermaas, P. (2009). The fine-grained metaphysics of artifactual and biological functional kinds. Synthese, 169, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. David, P. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
  10. De Vries, M. J. (2005). Duality or dualism? A reply to Johan Stellingwerff. Philosophia Reformata, 70, 64–69.Google Scholar
  11. DeRidder, J. (2006). The (alleged) inherent normativity of technological explanations. Techné, 10(1), 97–116.Google Scholar
  12. Dipert, R. (1993). Artifacts, art works, and agency. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dipert, R. (1995). Some issues in the theory of artifacts: defining ‘artifact’ and related notions. The Monist, 78(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elder, C. (2007). On the place of artifacts in ontology. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Essays on artifacts and their representation (pp. 33–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  16. Franssen, M., Kroes, P. & Vermaas, P. E. (Eds.) (Forthcoming). The metaphysics of technical artifacts. Synthese Library Volume.Google Scholar
  17. Hilpinen, R. (1993). Authors and artifacts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 93, 155–178.Google Scholar
  18. Hilpinen, R. (2004). Artifact. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed July 23rd, 2009.
  19. Houkes, W. (2006). Knowledge of artifact functions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Houkes, W., & Meijers, A. (2006). The ontology of artifacts: the hard problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. (2004). Actions versus functions: a plea for an alternative metaphysics of artifacts. The Monist, 87(1), 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. (2009). Contemporary engineering and the metaphysics of artefacts: beyond the artisan model. The Monist, 92(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Houkes, W., & Vermaas, P. (2010). Technical functions: On the use and design of artifacts. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Houkes, W., Vermaas, P. E., Dorso, K., & de Vries, M. J. (2002). Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account. Design Studies, 23, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Illies, C., & Meijers, A. (2009). Artefacts without agency. The Monist, 92(3), 420–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirchoff, M. D. (2009). Material agency: a theoretical framework for ascribing agency to material culture. Techné, 13(3).Google Scholar
  27. Knappett, C., & Malafouris, L. (2008). “Material and nonhuman agency: an introduction.”. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric perspective (pp. ix–xix). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artifacts. Design Studies, 23, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kroes, P. (2006). Coherence of structural and functional descriptions of technical artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2002). Reply to critics. Techné, 6(2).Google Scholar
  31. Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2006). Introduction: the dual nature of technical artifacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krohs, U. (2009). Structure and coherence of two-model descriptions of technical artifacts. Techné, 13(2), 150–161.Google Scholar
  33. Krohs, U., & Kroes, P. (2009). Philosophical perspectives on organismic and artifactual functions. In U. Krohs & P. Kroes (Eds.), Functions in biological and artificial worlds: Comparative philosophical perspectives (pp. 3–12). Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope: Essays on the reality of Science Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Longy, F. (2006). Function and probability: the making of artifacts. Techné, 10(1), 81–96.Google Scholar
  36. Malafouris, L. (2008). At the potter’s wheel: an argument for material agency. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric perspective (pp. 19–36). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McGrail, R. (2008). Working with substance: actor-network theory and the modal weight of the material. Techné, 12(1), 65–84.Google Scholar
  39. Mitcham, C. (2002). Do artifacts have dual natures? Two points of commentary on the Delft Project. Techné, 6(2).Google Scholar
  40. Mumford, S. (2006). Function, structure, capacity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rozenburg, N., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Scheele, M. (2006). Social norms in artifact use: Proper function and action theory. Techné, 10(1), 65–80.Google Scholar
  44. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sheil, B. (2005). Design through making: An introduction. Architectural Design, 75(4), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simondon, G. (1980). The mode of existence of technical objects. [Electronic Version]. London: University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  47. Simondon, G. (2008). El modo de existencia de los objetos técnicos. Buenos Aires: Prometeo.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, B. (2007). Ontología. In G. Hurtado & O. Nudler (Eds.), El mobiliario del mundo: Ensayos de ontología y metafísica (pp. 47–73). Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Mexico.Google Scholar
  49. Sperber, D. (2007). Seedless grapes: nature and culture. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Essays on artifacts and their representation (pp. 124–137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  51. Thomasson, A. (2003). Realism and human kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(3), 580–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thomasson, A. (2007). Artifacts and human concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Creations of the mind: Essays on artifacts and their representation (pp. 52–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Vaesen, K. (2006). How norms in technology ought to be interpreted. Techné, 10(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
  54. Vermaas, P. (2006). The physical connection: engineering function ascription to technical artifacts and their components. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vermaas, P. (2009). On unification: taking technical functions as objective (and biological functions as subjective). In U. Krohs & P. Kroes (Eds.), Functions in biological and artificial worlds: Comparative philosophical perspectives (pp. 69–87). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Vermaas, P., & Houkes, W. (2003). Ascribing functions to technical artifacts: a challenge to etiological accounts of functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 54, 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vermaas, P., & Houkes, W. (2006). Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wouters, A. (2005). The function debate in philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica, 53, 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations