/lit/ - Literature

>>20027642
Lewis Mumford and John Dewey come to mind. Neil Postman is more of a critic and you can see musings on technology from Jean Baudrillard, and Marshall McLuhan

>>20027778
This is good. Also it’s a bit more niche but I found pic related to be really fascinating, since it not only covers some of the ground that Heidegger treads here but also considers how China’s attitudes to technology and technics are radically different due to major differences in their philosophical tradition.

>>20027642
Simondon, Stiegler …

Because Technique is the perverse word that is probably the most used but the least definitely defined in modern society.
You will find it everywhere from psychoanalytics (Freud), physicists (Heisenberg), philosophers (Heidegger et al.), to popes (Ratzinger) as an integral essential notion, but you will still not find common ground.
To equate Technique with technology doesn’t just upset philosophers, but Heisenberg himself struggled with this aspect and the resulting futility and servility of the physicist for the “experiment”. You will get copes from all philosophical spectrums Heidegger-McLuhann-Marxists that just think Technology needs to be imbibed with humanity again and it will truly be the saving grace turned away from danger, but it always seems like optimistic cope.

There is probably no bigger and weightier modern word than technique and everybody uses it, but all is too scared to actually grasp it (with plenty of attempts made). Nick Lands essay on Trakl and Heidegger is amazing in this respect and employing Heideggers own notion of fear and fright to bring this technique close is very interesting to say the least.

There used to be a lot of philosophy of technique anons here, but most seem to have stopped posting. Would be very cool to hear if they had been continuing their work, their readings and maybe stumbled upon something new.

>>20027642
Read Ellul

b

>>20028540
Is the anon who made that chart still around?

this is an absolute must read

Walter Benjamin, Baudrillard, Spengler, Kaczynski

Future shock

>>20027642
What's with the anti-technology? Any books with positive views on technology?

>>20032645

>>20032585
I recommend this to people often. It's worth reading if you want to get a broader view as to what propaganda is and what it entails. It helps you realize how most things can be seen as some form of propaganda, and it's often a matter of degree.

Anyone else really like this book? I didn't read anything else by Ellul, although I know he has a ton of material. I can only handle so much philosophy at a time.

>>20032659
Yes, I've also read Technological Society and it's good but overlaps with Propaganda to some extent, which I prefer as a book.

>>20032657
Not exactly, Schwab and Malleret talk about how increased surveillance can be used for evil

>>20027642
https://canonic.xyz/books/1YV9yExbmJ9mgBXNM81TouJuDtqxH2PpL

>>20033767
>Beyond that, Poulos offers up a tremendous analysis with novel points (electric light as false metaphor for a type of digital god, the wojak as Information Solar-Anus from Bataille, science-math manifest in tech as gnostic heresy, and the need to subordinate technology to the human memory). He doesn't perfectly "solve" the issue - pardon the American critique of philosophy for the moment - but rather focuses on the fact that technology must be approached theologically in our relationship to the beast.
>the wojak as Information Solar-Anus from Bataille

Wendell Berry is very good on technology.

>>20034280
seems pretty retarded.

Most of this stuff seems like tech-critical stuff not tech-advocacy stuff. This thread needs a little more balance

>>20033134
But they're advocating using it for good,so yes it's what was asked for.

>>20027642
Don't forget about your Rousseau people. And, honestly? I don't know if it is a meme, but kintsugi, the Japanese art of repairing broken things and giving everything history and purpose, might be a great way to begin thinking about how to redeem technology.

>>20035039
So Peter Thiel and the likes?
Wow that is so exciting.

>>20035059
No idea who that is

>>20035039
Fyodorov and other prometheanism

>>20027642
>Why aren't there more books about the philosophy of technology?
Because technology is controlled by Big Tech and they care about money and power and not philosophy. They wouldn't accept it if some kind of ethics would limit their possibilities. Also they are busy enough to fight against data privacy laws.

>>20035075
yeah I have the Russian Cosmism book, I probably should get to reading it soon, have had it for awhile.

>>20030224
Don't think so. He got banned and said they warned him not to post anymore.

>>20032645
There are, but they lack depth. Ray Kurzweil and Kevin Kelly are the two most interesting. Klaus Schwab is probably the most prominent pro-tech thinker, but he's probably the most perfect example of the midwit archetype you will ever find.

The critics will often try to set out a possible path, but that also tends to be their weakest writing, and the most dated.

>>20028540
>Philosophy of technology
What a shit list

>No explicitly historical texts explicitly focused on discussing scientific and technological progress in various domains in the last three centuries to contextualize the discussion
>No positive books to counterbalance the list having multiple manifestos decrying technology
>No books explicitly dedicated to futurism or AI, the former being the primary domain in which technological philosophy is expanding in 2022, and the latter which is actively causing bleeding-edge rapid societal transformations in real-time
>No book explicitly dedicated to exploring or discussing the most important technology of the last century, the nuclear weapon
>No biographical or autobiographical takes of any key scientists or inventors to contextualize the history of the thought with the people who drove them

EXTREMELY cringe, this is the equivalent of making a booklist called "books about ice cream", and then every book on it is like
>The scourge of the dairyman
>Cattle and its exploitation
>The collapse of American dentisty
>Sugar: a dance with death
>Milkshakes and the etiology of rape

>>20035921
this is another chart.

>>20027642
The Failure of Technology - F.G. Junger

>>20035953
>implying this doesn't have the exact same problem as the previous list, except now the list is for ants and desperately needs a graphic designer
Sadge

Technology isn't prevalent, surveillance is. Take away smartphones and we're living similarly to old-eras people.

>>20035921
filtered

>>20036632
>Anon: I would like to understand philosophy of technology
>You: Sure here's a bunch of books by dead germans writing about pre-globalization capitalism and governance over 70 years ago, anarchoprimitivists from 50 years ago, and pre-1980 technophobes
>Anon: Look, maybe some of those are good and should be on a reading list for this, but isn't a list like that sparse on important details, one-sided, dated, and somewhat off-topic?
>You: Lol filtered trololololo!!!
Pic related

>>20036930
>i can't read old stuff and think about how it applys to new stuff

>>20036304
>he said, typing into his internet connection on his laptop connected to gigabit fiber optic cables connected to global ISPs servicing anime image data he pulled from a cloudflare cache that loaded it instantly from a Google search trained using dozens of petabytes of daily streaming processed text and audiovisual data using new attention-based machine learning models to most accurately simulate his engagement with top links, paid for by a linked advertisement for his favorite brand of protein powder which Google deduced because of demographic data collaboratively filtered to maximize clickthrough in real time milticompany auctions that pay for literally everything online for him including a bustling creative economy on youtube and twitch so he could post a smug anime girl of a vtuber, a fake human anime hybrid using real time motion capture technology to provide a moving animated representation of the actor, to people in different countries for free that anyone else in the world can look at instantly, 3 seconds later on 4chan, and it all just works.
If you think the only think that changed was surveillance, you’re 100% a zoomer, because almost none of this was possible like this even 10-20 years ago

>>20037054
wireless existed since 19th century

rest is just algos

>>20037086
> wireless existed since 19th century
You’d be the guy saying
>The bible was readable since 348, just learn Latin!
When Martin Luther’s translated bible comes out and upends Christendom from its very roots

Half the posters itt need to dilate, and the other half need to have sex. "Philosophy of technology" is for mongoloids.

>>20035803
So glowniggers threaten people for posting good threads.

>>20036304

Not really tho. Just go talk to your grandparents how their grandparents lived and you would bé shocked how it did progress. People in early XX were closer to medieval ages than we are to them in term of techniques
>Most of agriculturals machinery wasnt that much prevalent leave alone the efficiency we have now
>TV wasnt widespread ,only source of information was newspapers or officials or mouth-to-ear
> Washing machinery (for clothes or dishes) wasnt prevalent
> Modern heating wasnt prévalent ,people would still heat with woods
>People still cutted the wood like old times
>Modern luminosity at home wasnt prevalent
>Car werent prevalent

I imagine there was a lot of other things. Yes you could argue by pointing out at americans in california showing how they were more advanced considering all those things but it wasnt in europe until post WWII.
Now imagine living without a car,washing machine,modern heat,modern plumbing, TV and anything that came up post WWII ?
Its crazy to think about it.

>>20035921
Name one good thing technology has done for humanity. I'll wait.

>>20033134
Can be? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>20035921
Do you have any recommendations for
>>No explicitly historical texts explicitly focused on discussing scientific and technological progress in various domains in the last three centuries to contextualize the discussion
and
>>No biographical or autobiographical takes of any key scientists or inventors to contextualize the history of the thought with the people who drove them
and
>>No positive books to counterbalance the list having multiple manifestos decrying technology

I just finished the technological society but my lack of context makes it hard to get a deeper understanding.

>>20037430
>Name one good thing technology has done for humanity. I'll wait.
I can't. In fact, your argument is so convincing that I encourage you to lead by example to de-tech your life.

Here's a quick way to get started - shut down your computer, remove your computer's battery and make sure it's unplugged. Place it in your sink, pour a box of salt into the vents, and then run the water in the sink through the vent fans. Continue running the water until the entire machine is absolutely saturated and leaking from the seams. This will corrode the internal circuitry so you can't use it anymore.

Do this again with your wifi router and telephone, and make sure when you're done to use a hammer to make sure the phone and laptop screens are really good and smashed up and unusable.

Since technology has done no good for humanity, this will dramatically improve your life, right?

>>20035921
You haven't read any of the books.

>>20037438
The animefag doesn't read. Mumford and several other authors are exactly what he asked for.

>>20037460
You just proved his point by implying you need technology to function in society. If it's virtually impossible to live without a computer or a phone then we have become overly dependent on those things. That's a negative attribute to technology, what are some positive attributes?

>>20037525
I never said it was virtually impossible to live without them - I know plenty of older people who don't, happily.

I'm saying it because it's obvious anon isn't going to do that, so there clearly exists SOME good in technology keeping him from doing so, which he and you are already both keenly aware of or you'd be at the sink right now.

>>20037525
Most people are not Buddhists or Taoists, anon. They believe further conditioning, no matter how fragile and impermanent, is to be encouraged. Of course there is "some good" in technology. The only question is whether or not it has, does, or will ever outweigh the "some bad" it has so far created as a result of its conditionings and natural reactions. So far we seem to have adversely affected the planetary order in a way that is largely negative, with only (mostly, not entirely) sentimental factors outweighing the negatives. These sentimental factors are those like computers, fast food, and so forth, which can be nice, but which are not worth the negative counterbalance when considered from a higher perspective. If one only takes into account one's own life, then sure, technology is likely fine, even saintly when you consider the possibility for modern medicine to cure or relieve you of severe pains and illnesses. But when one considers the precipice of absolute catastrophe mankind has been perched on since at least the late 1940s, along with the equally catastrophic environmental impacts we've had and continue to have, one cannot help but see it ending badly. To quote Buddha, "the sleeping village is washed away by the flood."

>>20037529
Yeah, obviously but does the good outweigh the bad? Lot's of people eat McDonald's but I'm sure you would agree the world would be better off without it.

No worries OP ill just quickly write you some right now since nobody has made a book on it:
1. all technology ever created was made by man to try and sleep with women (ie to get money from inventing it to get women).
2. once techology advances to the stage it can create perfectly realistic sex in the matrix all technological progress will end.

Thats why nobody is writing a book on it, its to difficult to avoid that simple undeniable fact.

People worry about the technological singularity and Skynet killing off humans but 100% realistic matrix sex will truely kill off humans and happen far before AI.

>>20037529
Hi. Anon from before. I did what you said but quickly was overcome with boredom then anxiety and had to run to the library. I'm typing this from their public computers. I couldn't stand another second without the sweet sweet dopamine hit of the bluelight and "the chan". Thank god for technology.

>>20037460
You still haven't answered my challenge.

I miss, more than anything in my life on Earth, being a kid in year twothousand three; Millennials who were born between years nineteen ninetyfour, and nineteen ninetyseven, were raised, and experienced their childhood, through the last period of optimal mundification of the internet; web technology seemed to us like nothing but an instrument for transcendent unification, and universal syncord; animated television series such as: "MegaMan NT Warrior", "Code Lyoko", "Digimon", et cetera, were idealistic reifications of this vision; the hypermodern perversion of this millennial optimism seemed to come as suddenly as we were plunged into the world during our adolescence.

https://soundcloud.com/qlqlql/ep001-tukio#t=44:25

>>20037460

Didnt help, I just went back on the internet on my phone. Also now the sinks full of smashed stuff and I cant do the dishes.

>>20037581
>Name one
I did. If you're making me be explicit,

"Whatever affirmative reason is keeping you from purging technology from your life which you claim lacks any good - which you continue to use to reply here in you free time in a manner most uncharacteristic of someone who isn't enjoying themselves."

>>20037586
He has also yet to provide a concrete example of how technology has benefited humanity. Only vague appeals to "it does some good, surely". But I'll stop >>20037460
(you) before you start. Singular answers won't do as this isn't the critique of the authors in the chart. Ellulian "technique" is a much more holistic concept than one off examples of technology which is not what any serious anons here are arguing against.

>>20037595
Heroin is enjoyable. Probably bad for humanity to engage in its use though.

>>20037600

The matrix is the soul goal of technology. Everything else is just a step along the way. Sadly, I feel we were born too soon and will not get to experience the utopia that all our suffering is going towards creating.

Everything is pure misery compared to having your brain hooked up to experience living in a perfect world always.

>>20037438
This question essentially seems to be
>well, what books are YOU suggesting ought to be there, then?

For a positive book I'd want
>Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
which explores that which we can know and the ways those things can be interpreted - and how it relates to technological systems, math, music, art, and consciousness through deep and fundamental interconnections.

For an interesting counterbalance to the anarchoprimitivists like Ted, I'd want some techno-communists and leftist accelerationism in the list, perhaps
>Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work
Which is a 2015 manifesto arguing for full automation, universal basic income, and a reframing of technology in the societal consciousness as a tool of reformation and of the masses' liberation from the yolk of servitude as part of a reformatory process of implementing modern utopia,

It's laughable that one of the most important philosophers on scientific progress, Kuhn, didn't make the list, and
>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Ought to be included, which discusses the process of creating scientific paradigms and how they develop into a view of what the current state of reality is, and how we dismantle old ones over time to develop new ones as new information and technology is invented - and where this process can succeed or go wrong.

For historical texts, while I WOULD want a historic primer, I think if you're keeping the list short, you need two historical perspectives relating to our current relationship with technology and its progress:
>LOOK HOW FAST WE'RE GOING WTF
>LOOK HOW SLOW WE'RE GOING WTF

For which I'd pitch
>Where's My Flying Car?
For slowness, as a long-form exploration of the aforementioned question and the societal forces opposing the uninhibited progress of technology and the headwind forces in a society that make it become slow to develop and advance new and emergent technology, and

>Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control
As an exploration of modern AI systems, how we're moving at a dangerous, breakneck speed, the ways in which we currently control AI and are losing control of it, and exploring the philosophical problems emerging as we make machines that more closely approximate human consciousness, exceed human intellect and capability in ways that could actively obsolete and endanger humanity.

>>20037615
Bud, transhumanism and "the singularity" are a lie. Serious AI researchers know this. And even if it did work, what makes you think the technological overlords won't impose their own fucked up ethical framework on that world? A world which will in fact run on finite resources? Do you really want to put your life and reality in the hands of someone like Elon Musk? Or god-forbid some Israeli tech firm? We already live in that reality! Kek!

>>20037638

I will be using the 4chan equivalent of the matrix, not the facebook mainstream version.

One can only imagine how the 4chan version of the matrix will be but hell, I know id prefer it to the facebook version.

>>20037601
Your argument as you’ve phrased it is hopelessly weak.

You could use the way you phrased it as a generic argument against any and all pleasure, since
>oho! But heroin also causes pleasure in a similar fashion! Ergo all pleasure is bad!
Which I’d argue is obviously bullshit to anyone who isn’t huffing their own farts.

The steelman version of your argument would have been
>technology, including my computer, is indeed all bad, but I am addicted to my computer like heroin, and therefore I shall not salt-bathe it - I could not quit if I wanted to
Which while much stronger, seems like a cop-out or a failure to be honest with oneself to me, as it seems like you’re just having more fun using a computer than alternatives, and the attempted conflation of that fun with literal chemically addictive substances that act directly on brain chemistry is both dis-analogous and an attempted forced medicalization of your chosen activities to avoid confronting or admitting that you genuinely do enjoy, e.g, using your computer over alternatives.

>>20037636
Cringe

>>20037734
>Your argument as you’ve phrased it is hopelessly weak.
Read Epicurus. It's not all too often I say that, but this is really the most basic negative hedonism.

>>20037787
>calling effortposting cringe
cringe

>>20037877
I wouldn't call it an effortpost

>>20037636
>techfag is a marxist
Tldr you're a faggit

>>20037877
Effort isn't necessarily a good thing. And writing a lot isn't necessarily effort.
Should have read a philosophy book before criticizing the philosophy of technology.

>>20034280
Seems reasonable

>>20037636
>UBI

Oof.

>>20037894
>>20038228
>>20038963
>>20038978
>all these people unwilling to engage with the parts of a philosophical discussion they disagree with
You realize you don’t have to agree with them to read what they have to say, right? You should be able to recognize that someone can recommend something they don’t personally agree with either because it’s an important strain of competing thought in the space.

I expected better of you, /lit/. It’s sad that many of you don’t seem to actually care about the philosophy of technology and were just looking for someone in your parochial filter bubble to tell you
>fuck leftists go innawoods

>>20039290
you are probably talking to teenagers

>>20039290
>You realize you don’t have to agree with them to read what they have to say, right?
Why the fuck would I waste my very limited time reading authors I know I will dislike and refuse to engage at face value?
>You should be able to recognize that someone can recommend something they don’t personally agree with either because it’s an important strain of competing thought in the space.
Calling post-work fantasies an "important strain of thought" is a joke, and saying it competes is hardl right too. Strains of thoughts compete in the same demographic, those of different demographics war.
>I expected better of you, /lit/.
This is a mongolian yogurt forum, you shouldn't have.
>It’s sad that many of you don’t seem to actually care about the philosophy of technology
When people mean "the philosophy of technology" here, they obviously mean positions against technology (with the exception of Junger). Pro-tech positions and the right-wing thought dominant on this site don't mix well together, especially after a century of technologic proliferation.
>and were just looking for someone in your parochial filter bubble to tell you
Yes, that's what these threads are about.

>>20027642
Heidegger.

>>20039482
>Why the fuck would I waste my very limited time reading authors I know I will dislike and refuse to engage at face value?
This is an important, if not the core, aspect of the philosophical project - because you should want to force your views to confront opposition and improve from these encounters.

When reading the Greeks, for example, it's very unlikely you'll actually agree with them on all that much. They had a very different worldview on life, war, religion, masculinity and femininity, societal hierarchies, the universe and one's place in it - and will oftentimes just say something you blatantly, innately, deeply, think is wrong, everyone in the room will agree
>yes Socrates, of course!
and it's assumed incorrectly you're nodding along too as their "debate" becomes increasingly uncanny because you feel like NO ONE is correct anymore.

When you feel challenged like this, your views are being forced to put in work and justify your continued belief in them, because here are two very smart-for-their-time people who both think you're wrong. The exploration of this feeling and how you resolve it will either make your beliefs more accurate to the truth, will give you a better understanding of your own views, will allow you to incorporate their new viewpoint into your own, or will highlight cases where you have made assumptions about life that weren't as much a given as you thought they were, and force you to change.

This struggle is philosophy's primary value. You don't need to read more of what you already know and agree with, it's like putting ketchup on ketchup.

>Calling post-work fantasies an "important strain of thought" is a joke
Don't take it so lightly, particularly in a discussion of the philosophy of technology. Many people with significant power believe, implicitly or explicitly, the project of technology is to create a Jetsonian style world in which man is at leisure, work is eliminated, tech accelerates at a rate incomprehensible to current humans, AI should and will take over, and mankind is free to pursue arts and higher goals - and believe that new developments in governmental policy and technology are likely to make this successful and a boon to humanity.

These people would hyper-aggressively disagree with Kaczynski types who think even industrialization was a mistake - and if you're giving Ted's "all tech was a mistake" stance time as part of the philosophy of technology, his polar opposite saying "all refusals of tech are a mistake" ought to get a shot at the mike too.

>When people mean "the philosophy of technology" here, they obviously mean positions against technology
>that's what these threads are about.
That's a very narrow view and ISHYGDDT

>>20039290
Hey faggot. You're the one bitching about a chart that has all the best books on it because you never read them.

>>20040096
>You're the one bitching about a chart that has all the best books on it
The core problem is what that list and you consider "all the best books" is incorrectly being mentally translated into
>a list of anarchoprimitivist and anti-technology books from the 70s and earlier
which is a very, very far cry from
>A book list on the philosophy of technology
which is the chart's title, which as presented now is missing serious diversity of thought which >>20037636 would help.

>you haven't read them
Even if I told you I read all or most of these books, it wouldn't change your view - your core objection is
>but... but I think those books are based!!!! I don't want to cut any!!!
plus
>I don't wanna include philosophy of technology that doesn't agree with MY favorite philosophy of technology!!!! I'd rather pretend it doesn't exist!!!!
Which means you're kinda an intellectually bankrupt dumbfuck who's too chickenshit to present other viewpoints out of fear people might not agree with you, but whatever man.

>>20027642
difficult to write a "philosophy of technology" when different technologies have radically different implications, drawbacks and possibilities, horizons of uncertainty. there are plenty of brainlet utilitarians writing on automation, the digital world and the attention economy, artificial intelligence and the like, but as should be expected it's basically all trash. Zizeks recent "Hegel in a wired brain" was decent imo, not what I would call well-structured, but it does touch on a lot of interesting questions regarding brain-machine interfacing and the coherence (or rather, lack thereof) of singularity as a concept.

>>20034280
seems reasonably retarded

>>20037636
>>It's laughable that one of the most important philosophers on scientific progress, Kuhn, didn't make the list, and
wanna know why?
because it is a list on Technology and not Science itself.
Heidegger covers this issue enough himself.

The point of philosophy of technology is that "technology" is supposed to give you a point of refrence to explain the world. by straying away from that you are losing this anchor and trying to solve adjacent aspects remotely puts you in a totally different field.
There is a reason Lavoisier, a text on Watts, etc is not included.

>>20040512
>"technology" is supposed to give you a point of refrence to explain the world.
An interesting viewpoint Heidegger makes, and he very much belongs in this list too - but Kuhn would probably argue that the scientific progress he is discussing would include the applied sciences too, as expressed through real-world implementations and technology, and therefore inextricably link his work to the philosophy of technology.

Try as you might, you, can't Prune the Kuhn

>>20040706
what is the point of providing the slippery philosophy of science thinkers to end up back via Lakatos at just focusing on technology as technology.
Kuhn should be read by any generally educated person, but so should one read Popper and more. Yet, they are NOT philosophy of technique thinkers, so they really should be omitted from such a list.
Heisenberg is a more appropriate natural scientists who could be included in the list because he has philosophical ruminations about sciences interplay with technology and the implications of this.

>>20040761
>What's the point to end up just focusing on technology as technology
Because the list is literally called "the philosophy of technology", and if that's a path on the trail, it probably ought to be on such a list?

Some anon dropped a technique list in >>20035953 and it's a piece of shit, go fix that one if you really care about the distinction

>>20040784
how is the second list any different than the initial one?
It just has some extra sources of the same things.

>>20040788
That's exactly my problem - they SHOULDN'T be the same list, technology is a far broader space philosophically, particularly recently, then the narrowly scoped version of the term used by the Germans.

>>20040793
> the narrowly scoped version of the term used by the Germans.
k. name me a thinker whose definition of Technology better encompasses what you understand by Technology. I do not recall Technology being a fundamental term in Kuhn's work.
>narrowly scoped version
I think, if any criticism of the germans is appropriate here, then it is that they went to all encompassing and abstract rather than narrow.

>>20040169
Cringe. Go watch your anime tranny.

>>20040815
>k. name me a thinker whose definition of Technology better encompasses what you understand by Technology
Why? You're already like 3 levels removed from the colloquial use of the term.

The scenario I care about is that someone random and unread on 4chan sees a list titled "philosophy of technology". Being real, what do you think they're looking for,
>A bunch of books hypercurated around a Heideggerian redefinition of the term used to discuss a means of world-explanation via points of reference
or
>A collection of quality books about thought on advancements getting made and the nature of those advancements, both by researchers and inventors, with relevant previous thought as well as modern developments in the space?

I'd strongly argue the latter, and if you think it's the former, I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye.

>>20040864
back to your containment board

>>20030224
>>20035803

>>20028540
>>20040870
Give a critique of two of the books listed.

>>20040911
>refuses to engage with the object level arguments on the original topic
>asks for random pivot tangents instead
Booooooo.

>>20040870
>>A collection of quality books about thought on advancements getting made and the nature of those advancements, both by researchers and inventors, with relevant previous thought as well as modern developments in the space?
I do want to point out that having Simondon in that list is a defence of that exact point amidst all the "aloofness". Maybe you didn't care to take him into consideration.
>Why? You're already like 3 levels removed from the colloquial use of the term.
Isn't the whole fucking problem that Technique fails to actually be grasped? You escape into criticizing the theoretical side of the sciences, because you couldn't find a foothold in the experimental applied side.
Take also into consideration that Technique (I chose Technique over Technology, because in German the word used is Technik not Technologie) only entered the relm of modern philosophy when coined by Kapp in 1877. Technique as a philosophical notion is a very new term and therefore the early """"re-""""appropriating of the term by philosophers in the early 20th century (Benjamin, Heidegger, Jünger, Futurists) is the first ever actual attempt made to grasp the very term itself. These guys, basing on earlier thinkers in the natural sciences and other thinkers like hegel and marx, were the first to bring it to the table.
You want to expand this attempt by bringing in adjacent thinkers? Fine. But understand the origin. An elaboration on Plato and Aristotles use of Technique, Physis, episteme, etc. is not straying from colloquial use of the term. The colloquial use is of no "use".

I wouldnt mind hearing which sections maybe a good chart would have added instead:
Id suggest adding more natural scientists (Heisenberg) and relevant thinkers (Kuhn) in a relevant sub group as well as another through the artistic inspiration for grasping technique (Kafka, Kleist since Deleuze uses them extensively to grasp a wider notion that can be understood as technique; but they must stick to technique. Trakl is important to Heidegger but doesnt deal with technique himself; so, omit).

>>20040882
I dont recognize what website that is. Can you help?

>>20037734
You still never answered my challenge. Name one good thing technology has done for humanity.

>>20041084
not him but women like vibrators and that's technology. people having orgasms is good.

Check out Don Ihde. He is admittedly kind of derivative, and mostly just ends up stealing from or applying ideas from Merleau-Ponty, Husserl and their ilk. but he has interesting work about the phenomenology/experience of technology. Most modern philosophers of technology do brainless shit about ethics, but Ihde actually has interesting explorations of what the effects of technology are on direct experience, which I think is something prior to and more fundamental than ethics. He has a more neutral stance towards technology, as his work is more about an objective analysis of “what it is like” to live in our new technological world.

>>20040870
>t. delusional /int/cel

the posters of this thread are deeply remiss for not mentioning crypto or one of the major whitepapers like chain link

>>20041400
Land was mentioned :)

>>20041400
The disappointment was not mentioning the beloved Library of Babel, Google.

>>20041400
Yeah, because they're UNPROVEN emerging tech - you'll get the occasional person sucking AI's dick because it's proven emerging tech, there are lots of things you can point to where AI is aggressively reshaping societal structures in eg law, finance, and the workplace.

Crypto, IoT, Commercial Drone tech, AR, and VR by comparison are all in a similar place right now of
>If you're being charitable, there's a handful of interesting-but-mostly-impractical applications that exist now, and maybe 3-4 small improvements visible on the horizon we can foresee in the nearish future which will be kinda cool and improve quality-of-life, but the tech for all of the above's mostly not there yet, those improvements are unlikely to massively change the game, and unless something very unexpected and new happens to make things cheaper, better, or massively iron out the flaws, things will mostly continue hovering around where they are right now
and
>if you're being uncharitable, they've proven themselves to be absolute shams, wastes of money built on broken promises, and are effectively just buzzwords to bilk other speculators and dumb institutional investors into spending money on products with no value so the CEOs can cash in before anyone realizes it was all a scam.

In either case, it's hard to find smart people who care enough to discuss philosophy related to the above unproven emerging techs, because most of the above aren't even working, let alone finished products

Nature is Lindy. We should be like elves or hobbits.

>>20041042
Telegram

>>20027642
Albert Borgmann, John Zerzan, and Nicholas Carr are some of the best philosophers of technology who I haven't seen mentioned yet.

You guys have been writing a meaningful philosophy book, right?

You guys have been growing your following, yes?

>>20041400
Cringe.

b

>>20041261
Women relying on vibrators and becoming alienated from men because of them is fundamentally bad. Maybe you can't but most people can give orgasms, as was intended by nature.

>>20044663
>Women relying on vibrators
your word choice is suspect. the word 'relying' seems like its implying they literally must use them and it's a 100% replacement for eg also fucking guys, rather than something they choose to use sometimes in addition because they can and they like it.

>and becoming alienated from men
this is the problem with marxists, they quite literally can't keep their capitalist critiques in their pants

>>20037636
based

>>20040882
Is that jungerposter?

>>20027642
Check out Alexander Bard.

>>20027642
Stanisław Lem
Summa Technologiae

>>20035921
because that's not what the topic is about you retard. everything you listed is worthless and irrelevant to the topic.

>>20027778
TLDR: If you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Not a whole lot else to it.

>>20046785
Heidegger BTFO, this is literally all his books if you cut his vocabulary fuckery out

>>20035921
>Philosophy of X
>No you have to read X instead!!!

>>20046723
This. It's a great chart and the anime fag just doesn't like who posted it.

>>20027642
Any other books?

>>20046785
>>20046908
>these are the people who inhabit this board with you

>>20034270
that's my review lmao - he doesn't use bataille explicitly but that's the concept

>>20034280
computerfags btfo

>>20037600
It makes record keeping and research a million times easier, especially in the medical field.

>>20027778
Bad translation.

>>20034280
seems reasonably based

>>20027642
That would require philosophers to actually understand technology first, which of course they don't because that was the reason they chose philosophy in the first place.

>>20027642
Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man

>>20051207
What's a better translation?

>>20048798
Explain why I'm wrong?
Heidegger never used anything beyond a typewriter. Also he was a nazi.
If you want actual philosophy of technology, read Simondon.

>>20054959
>Heidegger never used anything beyond a typewriter. Also he was a nazi.
>If you want actual philosophy of technology, read Simondon.

>>20054971
>>20054959 (You)
>Heidegger never used anything beyond a typewriter. Also he was a nazi.
>If you want actual philosophy of technology, read Simondon.

>>20035039
>>20035905
McLuhan is relatively optimistic about technology
And then of course there's pic related

>>20055040
And so is Simondon. Read Simondon. Also Langdon Winner is good. Heidegger, Ellul, Kaczynski, Spengler, etc are memes.

>>20027642
They Became What They Beheld
The GNU Manifesto
My Diary Desu

>>20055822
Simondon is garbage.
Fuck off.

>>20055822
Heidegger is univocally the greatest philosopher since Kant (at the very least), you don't get to dismiss him because you're to stupid to understand the work.

>>20032659
I liked the book as well, and it is actually very well written. Very concise, clear and to the point. That was one of my biggest pet peeves when I was reading Simulacra and Simulations by Baudrillard. That guy can only write in imagery and analogy it seems. Godawful book.

>>20034280
boring

>>20056919
Kant is trash though.

>Because Technique is the perverse word that is probably the most used but the least definitely defined in modern society.
tfw you realize when a word is so indefinitely defined that when people handwave at it they're not even handwaving at the same things, because there's no actual real thing being referred to and the blind men aren't even "rubbing the same elephants"

>>20060018
Doesn't philosophy talk about this with forms? Seems easily dealt with as long as you're not dealing with the unwilling.

>>20060052
Yeah, which is why Aristotle blew forms the fuck out by saying
>none of those actually exist tee bee aitch, we made them up and we'll probably change them later because half the time we're not even referring to a real, 'permanent' concept

>>20034280
he's kinda right. 80% of my office now works from home since covid started. There are days now where I don't talk to anyone face to face whereas previously that was unthinkable. Everybody SAYS they prefer working from home but I'm pretty sure in the long run it's making us all depressed

>>20040870
Why waste your time and money posting such inconsequential crap. Lurk more newfag.

>>20040882
Insanely based.

>>20048543
Gravity's Rainbow

Nah nigga.

>>20037431
LOL

>>20035978
I mean it has Simondon

>>20052258
Retarded take. You don't need to understand electrons to coin a philosophy on the impact of smartphones on sociability

>>20056066
Why should I care what you think?
>>20056919
Undergrad hands wrote this post.

>>20064597
Because Simondon is trash.
>>20063083
They both have Simondon retard. He's just not important.

The opening track to: "A. D. Police Files", slightly reminds me of the E P : "Devotion", by: "Planet 1 9 9 9"; they both have that busy spulkiness of a mundifying vision in their sonics; this is why certain projects from the 90s' are so endearing in this respect: the same "Y 2 K" spirit was intuited, and its sky prerendered, by all of them, all the way down unto the idealization of preemptive superphysicality in response to the inevitable fall, and perversion, that would cyclically follow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms2acyEFn-Y

man and technics, guy

>>20027642
books about technolog suck 2001 a space odyssey is the greatest philosophical work about man's relation to tech

>no Baudrillard

Raphael Sassower wrote a bunch.

>>20069471
way to schizo when it comes to sincere Philosophy of Technique.

Bump

>>20027642
What about this one?
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71UBQDCo9xL.jpg

Also, does Fanged Noumena count as a book on the history of technology due to some of the essays within it?

bump

>>20039482
>Pro-tech positions and the right-wing thought dominant on this site don't mix well together
Are you deluded?

>>20073579
I'm a Spenglerian Randist.

>>20075312
I'm a cottagecore dark academia big tiddy mommy type gf with assyrian characteristics into Landian-Twitter-Trotskyist Evola-Bohr fusionism with just a hint of pee-pee-poo-poo, and remarkably, that makes me less of a faggot than (you).

>>20073406
Faggot, let this thread die already. Sage

>>20073579
>Are you deluded?
Give me one (1) example, outside of Junger in The Worker.

>>20075379
Why are you trying to slide? Go read your harry potter posts on reddit.

>>20076600
You mean me?

>>20076600
What do you mean?

>>20076600
Reddit?

>>20076600
Slide?

>>20076600
What do you mean Harry Potter?

>>20076600
Why are you trying a thread that is older than a week?

>>20076600
Checked

>>20076600
What subreddits can you recommend?

>>20076600
What's your favorite Harry Potter post on reddit?

>>20076600
Double checked

>>20076600
You got many questions, why aren't you answering?

>>20076600
Are you too busy reading reddit posts to answer?

>>20076600
Are you OP btw?

>>20076600
Which books recommended here are you gonna read?

>>20076600
I think I never read a Harry Potter post on reddit.

>>20076600
Why did you assume I would harry potter posts on reddit btw?

>>20076600
I'm gonna slide in your DMs haha!

>>20076600
Are there many harry potter posts on reddit?

>>20076600
You are interested in technology, so are you a regular /g/ user? If so, did you install gentoo?

>>20076600
Are you more of a programming or more of a electronics guy?

>>20076600
Check'd

>>20076600
Where is the connection between what was said and harry potter? I see non, please elaborate.

>>20076600
Slide? What do you mean? Checked btw!

>>20076600
Why are you trying to read harry potter posts on reddit? Go slide.

>>20076600
In which country do you live btw?

Are you ok anon?

>>20076600
>harry potter bad
>reddit bad
>HAHA I'm gonna combine both in one post, 4chinners are gonna love me!

>>20076600
Sliding is fun

>>20076600
Give me some links

>>20076600
Are there any other good places to read harry potter posts besides reddit?

>antitocquevillefag spamming to 300 posts again
That's all the proof you need that one insane autist can ruin a board.

>>20076975
Do you mean me? Yes, why?

>>20076975
What about you, are you ok?

>>20076990
Wtf is antitocqueville?

>>20076990
I would say an insane autist that tries to keep an age-old thread alive by all means necessary is ruining the board

>>20076600
Can you answer please? Your post created many questions.

82 posters.

>>20076600
Who deleted the post you are quoting?

>>20076600
What's your favorite philosophy of technology book?

>>20076600
Everyone is talking about philosophy of technology. What about technology of philosophy?

>>20076600
What did the post say you are quoting?

>>20076600
I wanna read what the post said you are quoting. What's the best archive for that?

>>20076990
What philosophy of technology book are you gonna read now?

>>20077019
We are prolific.

>>20076600
Yo bro, where are you? We are waiting.

>>20076600
Are you writing a long answer or what is taking so long?

>>20076600
You're taking so much time, now I expect a very well thought out response!

>>20076600
Nice digits

>>20076600
Why are so many people responding to this haha what's so special about this post?

>>20073406
Didn't you get enough recommendations over a week now or why are you bumping?

Bump

>>20077099
Jk I saged

>>20077103
>Jk

>>20076600
many people have responded, so this has to be a good post :D

Bump

>>20071694
i'm so glad you bumped! we really need more books about the philosophy of technology. and this thread shall never die. hope it's still alive next month.

>>20071694
You hero! You saved this precious thread!

Bumpidy bump

Sage and bump are like the yin and yang. If you combine both in one post you achieve immortality.

>>20077108
Go read harry potter posts on reddit.

>>20076600
What's bad about harry potter?

Bump. We need to save this thread!

>>20027642
me blessing this thread

>>20071694
>>20073406
>>20076600
bump

>>20076600
Bro, I'm worried. Is everything ok? Please say something.

I-I...I'm gonna...BUUUUUUMP

>>20076600
Nice digits, fren.

>>20076600
Checked.

But now I'm curious what the anon youre responding to said.

>>20027642
Picrel is me in this thread, cozy af!

>>20076600
Haha nice response, get my upboots!

>>20076600
Hahahah this is funny AF

>>20076600
Nice digits, but this thread is about philosophy of technology and not harry potter. Why did you bring this up?

>>20076600
Lol nice response. Get we upvote this to the frontpage?

test

>>20076600
Include me in the screencap

>>20077161
And this is me blessing the thread

>>20076600
Did anyone here about this anon again? Hope he is well :(

>>20076600
Fuck man he wrote an EPIC post and then disappeared. The post included everything I like:
-harry potter hate
-reddit hate
-the epic 4chan word slide

>>20077263
Agree. I hope he comes back with another epic posts with more 4chan words in it.

No more book recommendations? Bump.

>>20077273
Yeah man we need more techlosiphy of philogiphy books

>>20027642
Do you guys think technology will be able to do philosophy one day?`I wanna hear what you think. Especially his opinion >>20076600 he seems to be the smartest here.

>>20077292
If tech can create philosophy, then the philosophy of technology will have a double meaning lmao

>>20076600
Nice response bro and I like your digits

>>20076600
Hahah very funny, you made my day xD

>>20076600
EPIC POSTS hahahaha that's why I'm coming here!

>>20076600
Oh shit, this gonna be a /lit/ classic I see it coming

>>20076600
QRD in this post?

>>20076600
Is this a copypasta?

>>20076600
This is such a good post man, I can't believe it. You diss harry potter and reddit in the same sentence. This is sooo /lit/, I can totally relate to it. Just so much this!

>>20076600
Witnessed

>>20076600
Epic. This post was so good, that the post you responded to self-immolated.

>>20076600
Can someone explain why this post is so popular?

>>20077354
Newfag. You have to go back.

>>20076600
>double dubs
Nice!

>>20076600
>6600
Incredible. I can't believe what I'm witnessing right now.

>>20076600
God damn. We broke him

>>20077096
I'm not the op, retard, i just thought the thread was interesting. why is it suddenly infested by schizo(s)?

>>20078800
Mysterygrove is scared someone might buy outdide of twitter.

>>20076600
Holy samefag...

This is why no one takes Philosophy of technology seriously.

>>20035921
I agree. It is of vital importance to learn the history of technology and science first.

Reading solely about the drawbacks of technological progress will distort your opinion and make you biased towards opposing technology.

>>20076600
Woah, this post really blew up!!!

>>20076600
Best post I've read in YEARS!

>>20076600
Sheeeeiiit, pleas include me in the screencap.

>>20079504
me too, me too, me tooo

>>20079504
>>20079514
Me too please