1. The homo poieticus and the bridge
between physis and techne
Federica Russo
Philosophy, Kent

2. Overview
Physis and techne in the digital era
The homo poieticus in the e-nvironment
The homo poieticus
As technoscientist
As philosopher
Ethics meets epistemology?
2

3. PHYSIS AND TECHNE
IN THE DIGITAL ERA
3

4. Physis:nature and reality
Techne:practical science and creation of artefacts
Inforgs:informational organisms
We, intelligent humans. Intelligent engineered artefacts
Infosphere:informational environment
The whole space of possible information, including Nature.
4

5. The digital revolution
The fourth revolution (Floridi 2008, 2009)
We, humans, are inforgs in the infosphere
A change in the interaction with the external world
and with ourselves
A revitalisation of the tension between physis and techne
A radical change in our role as ethical agents
5

6. Physis and techne
Technology makes a revolution in the tools to acquire knowledge
of the world
Intervening on Nature grants us epistemic access to it
Opening ofnew possibilities for the creation of artefacts
Pure science is not the privileged lieu of knowledge anymore
Technoscience: a noetic and poietic aspect on a par
6

7. THE HOMO POIETICUS
IN THE E-NVIRONMENT
7

8. New environment, new ethics
Digital revolution creates poietically-enabling environment
A new ethical agent: homo poieticus
More than just faber and oeconomicus
A maker: of the situation he’s in, of the action he takes
Egopoietic, sociopoietic, ecopoietic projects
A new ethical approach: constructionist ethics
Copes with the poietic skills of the agent
Reduces ‘moral luck’
8

9. Constructionist ethics Situated action ethics
• Agents happen to bein
some situation liable of
• Homo poieticuscreates new moral judgement
situations liable of moral
judgment
• Agents are evaluated for the
goodness or consequences
• Agents are also evaluated of their actions.
for the process that led to
the situation they are in No evaluation of how agents
got in the situation they are
in
9

10. Floridi argues Here I argue
• The digital dimension of the • Tensions between physis
fourth revolution revitalise and techne are revitalised
the tensions between physis because the fourth
and techne revolution is a technological
revolution (rather than
• In the infosphere, man digital).
creates the situations he is
in. We therefore need a • The homo poieticusis not
concept of homo just the ethical agent, but
poeiticusand a also the technoscientist and
constructionist ethics the philosopher
10

11. THE HOMO POIETICUS:
THE TECHNOSCIENTIST
11

12. From science to technoscience
The ‘Aristotelian’ scientist The ‘Baconian’ scientist
• Knowledge by passive • Knowledge by active
observation of Nature interaction with Nature
• Little, auxiliary role of • Primary role of
experimentation experimentation: the
scientist is a ‘maker’,
science is ‘scientiaoperativa’
• Science is (also) techne, it
• Science is episteme, it has has (also) poietic goals
noetic goals
12

13. Technoscientist as a maker
Making crafts
E.g.: computers, nuclear weapons, medical devices …
13

14. Technoscientist as a maker
Making knowledge
Floridi’s constructionist epistemology
Knowledge is the designing and modelling of reality
We lost our privileged location in the physical and
biological realms
(Copernican and Darwinian revolutions)
But we are still in a position to claim our centrality in the
construction of knowledge of those realms
14

15. Technoscientist as a maker
Making knowledge through instruments
A ‘constructionist choir’ (Ihde, Bunge, Heidegger):
Instruments allow us to know beyond the macro world
Instrumental attitude justified by obtained ‘practical’ results
(Ding an sichvsDing füruns)
Both techne and episteme ‘reveal’ or ‘disclose’ some truth,
the difference lying in what and how they reveal
15

16. THE HOMO POIETICUS:
THE PHILOSOPHER
16

17. The philosopher as a maker
Making and using thought and ideas
Floridi: philosophy as conceptual engineering
Not just or only a logico-mathematical procedure
But poiesis of thoughts and ideas – conceptual constructionism
Deleuze&Guattari: philosophers create concepts
Philosophy is not contemplation, reflection or communication
Philosophy finds new concepts that explain the world
As the world changes, so concepts do
17

18. ETHICS MEETS EPISTEMOLOGY?
18

19. Many virtues of the homo poieticus
Embodies many aspects of human ‘making’ activities:
Creation of situations liable to be morally assessed
Creation of crafts and knowledge
Creation of (philosophical) concepts
The homo poieticus can see technology
as knowledge and as creation of artefacts
19

20. Physis and technereconciled
Techne is an opportunity for the agent
To better know and act upon the world around
To ask new questions with respect to ‘classical’ epistemology
20

21. From technology
to ethical evaluation
Ethical evaluation
‘Action of making’ or ‘Process of using’
The purpose of the technological artefacts
makes it liable to ethical evaluation
What ethical evaluation?
New environments, new roles, new ethics
A constructionist ethics
21

22. Ethics meets epistemology
Questions and worries about technology depend on
what we know about emergent spaces of possibilities
What to do depends on what we know
A constructionist epistemology for a constructionist ethics
22

23. TO SUM UP AND CONCLUDE
23

24. The digital revolution urges us to rethink
the role of the ethical agent and of the ethical theory
The homo poieticus and constructionist ethics
The digitaltechnological revolution revitalises
the tensions between physis and techne
The tension is solved through a homo poieticus
that creates crafts, knowledge and concepts
A constructionist ethics is supported by
a constructionist epistemology.
The homo poieticus:
ethical agent, technoscientist and philosopher
24