Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| blog:2024:1029_design_and_reflective_judgments [2024/10/30 18:23] – mchiasson | blog:2024:1029_design_and_reflective_judgments [2024/11/02 00:37] (current) – mchiasson |
|---|
| |
| [[:Design]] and [[:Reflective Judgment]] are central concepts in an argument about the importance of diverse dialogue and perspectives in the shaping technological design (means and ends). But what is that argument, and what is its validity? Why not let a few individuals make the important decisions, such as the experts who can build the technology, or others experts with the vantages points and authority to discern the goals and ends, such as business managers with their typical focus on profitability and efficiency deemed necessary to ensure organizational survival in the marketplace? | [[:Design]] and [[:Reflective Judgment]] are central concepts in an argument about the importance of diverse dialogue and perspectives in the shaping technological design (means and ends). But what is that argument, and what is its validity? Why not let a few individuals make the important decisions, such as the experts who can build the technology, or others experts with the vantages points and authority to discern the goals and ends, such as business managers with their typical focus on profitability and efficiency deemed necessary to ensure organizational survival in the marketplace? |
| | |
| | ===== Response ===== |
| | |
| |
| [[:Andrew Feenberg]]'s argument derives from [[:Hannah Arendt]]'s [[:Reflective Judgment]], which itself rests on reformulated ideas from [[:Immanuel Kant]] and [[:Socrates]]. In our paper, we argue that //reflective judgment// in contrast with [[:determinative judgment]], emerges from individual experiences and opinions about technology (negative and positive), which is legitimized through its sharing and agreement with others. It is thus from experiences that are impressions and categories of technology are formed. Like Kant's example of the individual sharing of aesthetic experiences through opinions about a painting or nature, reflective judgments are revealed to be valid through a different process -- by sharing, discussion and agreement with others. | [[:Andrew Feenberg]]'s argument derives from [[:Hannah Arendt]]'s [[:Reflective Judgment]], which itself rests on reformulated ideas from [[:Immanuel Kant]] and [[:Socrates]]. In our paper, we argue that //reflective judgment// in contrast with [[:determinative judgment]], emerges from individual experiences and opinions about technology (negative and positive), which is legitimized through its sharing and agreement with others. It is thus from experiences that are impressions and categories of technology are formed. Like Kant's example of the individual sharing of aesthetic experiences through opinions about a painting or nature, reflective judgments are revealed to be valid through a different process -- by sharing, discussion and agreement with others. |
