Advertisement

Three Stages of Technical Artifacts’ Life Cycle: Based on a Four Factors Theory

  • Nan Wang
  • Bocong Li
Chapter
Part of the Philosophy of Engineering and Technology book series (POET, volume 31)

Abstract

Technical artifacts had been a lost theme in philosophy for a long time until the emergence of philosophy of technology in the end of nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, Herbert Simon put forward sciences of the artificial, and Peter Kroes and Anthonie Meijers proposed a theory of the dual nature of technical artifacts. From the point of view of philosophy of technology, Aristotle’s four causes theory is an explanation on the nature of technical artifacts in essence rather than that of the natural world. However, Aristotle, Simon, Kroes and Meijers did not pay attention to technical artifacts’ life cycle, which inevitably leads to the failure of their theory of technical artifacts to some extent. The fact that technical artifacts, like living beings, are as mortal as human beings means that they also have a life cycle from birth to death. In order to interpret these phenomena, we plan to raise a theory of four factors of technical artifacts. However, this paper only aims to define the life cycle of technical artifacts as three stages, i.e. creation, vitality, and ending. And it also going to examine the creation stage and re-interpret Aristotle’s four causes theory according to the four factors theory.

Keywords

Technical artifact Life cycle Three stages Four factors 

References

  1. Buchanan, R. (2015). Design ethics. In J. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Ethics, science, technology, and engineering: A global resource (pp. 557–563). Farmington Hills: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  2. Falcon, A. (2006). Aristotle on causality. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#toc. Online stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed 31 Nov 2016.
  3. Fan, Q. (2005). Kaogongji de gongyi sixiang [The crafts thoughts of Yijing]. Shi xue yue kan [Journal of Historical Sciences], 10, 119–121.Google Scholar
  4. Goffi, J. -Y. (2000). Jishu zhexue [Philosophy of technology] (D. Maoyong, Trans.). Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
  5. Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In W. Lovitt (Ed.), The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 3–35). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: Creations of mind and matter. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2002). The dual nature of technical atrtifacts—Presentation of a new research programme. Techne: Journal of the Society for Philosophy and Technology, 6(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  8. Li, B. (2002). Gongcheng zhexue yinlun [An introduction to the philosophy of engineering]. Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe [Daxiang Press].Google Scholar
  9. Marx, K. (2000). The German ideology. Online Version: Marx/Engels Internet Archive. marxists.org.Google Scholar
  10. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Negrotti, M. (2015). Artificiality. In J. B. Holbrook (Ed.), Ethics, science, technology, and engineering: A global resource (Vol. 1, pp. 127–129). Farmington Hills: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
  12. Schinzinger, R., & Martin, M. W. (2000). Introduction to engineering ethics. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Wen, R. (1993). Kao gong ji yi zhu [Translation and Annotation of Kao Gong Ji]. Shanghai: Shanghai Classic Publishing House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities and Social ScienceUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations