The Purpose of Theory: Why Critical Constructivism Should “Talk” and Postphenomenology Should “Do”

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper zooms in on a recent development in the discussion between postphenomenology and critical constructivism: the attempt at working out a political philosophy in the framework of postphenomenology, specifically Peter-Paul Verbeek's. Verbeek contrasts mediation theory to critical theory, arguing that critical theorists only "talk"; they don't "do." While the latter reproach postphenomenology/mediation theory for its lack of politics, Verbeek actually poses that "real" politics cannot be done by critical theorists-indeed exactly because of their not doing, that is, doing in the sense of helping to design and develop good real-world technological solutions. But this brings up pertinent questions, about whether a theory should "do" something, what that means, and whether calls for "doing" do not carry their own presuppositions with them that, if not made explicit, will bias the theory and its "use" toward certain directions. These issues are explored by way of among others an excursion into Rortyan pragmatism. Eventually, I conclude, it is perfectly acceptable that critical constructivism should "talk" and postphenomenology "do"-as long as we keep the meanings of those terms sufficiently clear.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)114-137
Number of pages24
JournalTechné: Research in Philosophy and Technology
Volume24
Issue number1-2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2020

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Purpose of Theory: Why Critical Constructivism Should “Talk” and Postphenomenology Should “Do”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this