Abstract
In this commentary, I scrutinize Coeckelbergh’s criticism of postphenomenology, and question whether postphenomenology indeed tends to neglect the social dimension of technology use (ontic), and must necessarily be conceived as being in opposition to transcendental philosophy (ontological). Second, I suggest that the Wittgensteinian concepts that Coeckelbergh introduces are interesting additions to the concepts used in postphenomenology, but that his use of the term “transcendental” seems up to now primarily to be a rhetorical means enabling him to distance himself from postphenomenology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For reasons of brevity, this review commentary focuses just on how Coeckelbergh’s Wittgensteinian approach to the philosophy of technology is presented in this paper, and leaves out how it is developed in his other work.
For current purposes, I take this self-description at face value and will not subject it to critical scrutiny. However, I want to stress that this doesn’t make me subscribe to either the idea that postphenomenology is in fact strongly nonfoundationalist and anti-essentialist, nor to the idea that only nonfoundationalist and anti-essentialist approaches can have a bearing on practical problems.
For reasons of brevity, I am not going to challenge that Coeckelbergh captures in this example what is distinct about postphenomenology, although I do not think that such vague claims are exemplary of postphenomenological analyses.
References
Coeckelbergh, M. (2021). Earth, technology, language: A contribution to holistic and transcendental revision after the artifactual turn. Foundations of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09730-9.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Romele, A. (2020). Technological capital: Bourdieu, postphenomenology, and the philosophy of technology beyond the empirical turn. Philosophy & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00398-4.
Rosenberger, R. (2020). “But, that’s not phenomenology!”: A phenomenology of discriminatory technologies. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne202010117.
Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (2015). A field guide to postphenomenology. In R. Rosenberger & P. P. Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations (pp. 9–41). London: Lexington Books.
Verbeek, P.P-. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design (R.P. Crease, Trans.). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Verbeek, P. P. (2016). Toward a theory of technological mediation: A program for postphenomenological research. In J. K. B. Friis & R. P. Crease (Eds.), Technoscience and postphenomenology: The Manhattan papers (pp. 189–204). London: Lexington Books.
Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed. (G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This comment refers to the article available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09730-9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Boer, B. Does an Ontic Whole Exist?: Conditions of Possibility and Technology Use. Found Sci 27, 1401–1407 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09751-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09751-4