Jesus Vega

This paper explores how maintenance and repair practices provide insights into the nature of artifacts. Inspired by Michael Thompson’s (2008) analysis of life-forms, we propose an analogy that invites us to view artifacts as if they were akin to living beings. This analogy allows us to argue that artifacts possess a kind of “life-form”: a structured mode of existence characterized by their intrinsic organization, characteristic operations, and distinctive life-cycles. We further contend that artifacts exhibit a principle of unity that aligns them within a broader lineage of similar entities, defined by their shared life-form across various stages of their existence. This unity is actively manifested in the practices of maintenance and repair, which are organized around preserving the continuity and coherence of the artifact’s life-form. This perspective enables us to offer meaningful reflections on the ontology of artifacts while engaging constructively with prevailing viewpoints on the subject.

This paper explores how maintenance and repair practices provide insights into the nature of artifacts. Inspired by Michael Thompson’s (2008) analysis of life-forms, we propose an analogy that invites us to view artifacts as if they were akin to living beings. This analogy allows us to argue that artifacts possess a kind of “life-form”: a structured mode of existence characterized by their intrinsic organization, characteristic operations, and distinctive life-cycles. We further contend that artifacts exhibit a principle of unity that aligns them within a broader lineage of similar entities, defined by their shared life-form across various stages of their existence. This unity is actively manifested in the practices of maintenance and repair, which are organized around preserving the continuity and coherence of the artifact’s life-form. This perspective enables us to offer meaningful reflections on the ontology of artifacts while engaging constructively with prevailing viewpoints on the subject.

In his book Autonomous Knowledge. Radical Enhancement, Autonomy, and the Future of Knowing (OUP, 2022). J. Adam Carter argues that both propositional knowledge and know-how must include a condition of autonomy in their analyses. The book aims to propose a theory of the nature of knowledge and its value that responds to the challenge raised by cases of undue epistemic dependence and radical performance enhancement. Throughout the book, Carter articulates an idea of epistemic autonomy that fluctuates between its positive component, expressed in terms of self-direction and (rational) self-governance, and its negative component, referring to the lack of a history of compulsion or interference in the formation and retention of belief. In this article, I argue that Carter needs to bet more clearly on a positive model of autonomy. This would allow him both to unify the explanation of both know-how and propositional knowledge and to answer how the value of self-constitution, from which the value of autonomous belief derives, finds its place in the epistemic domain.

Debería admitirse, a pesar de tantas y tantas argumentaciones de cuño historicista, que la revelación de la génesis y constitución histórica de un genuino problema filosófico no lo convierte en menos acuciante y perenne. Rorty comenzaba su ya clásica obra La filosofía y el espejo de la naturaleza con un capítulo titulado «La invención de la mente», pero el no menos clásico libro de Bruno Snell El descubrimiento del espíritu ya había establecido firmemente que «descubrimiento», en tales asuntos, no refiere ni al toparse con algo preexistente ni tampoco a una mera «invención». Se descubre algo que preexiste al descubrimiento, pero no bajo la forma en que, tras ello, se da a la reflexión, en este caso como problema sobre la naturaleza de lo espiritual o sobre la naturaleza de lo mental. Sin duda, lo descubierto en el pensar europeo con los griegos, a lo que Snell presta atención, está lejos del problema de la mente que preocupa a Rorty y que adquiere su primera expresión en la filosofía cartesiana. En este último ven la luz ciertas intuiciones que, preexistentes, anteriores en esencia y constitutivamente a los principios filosóficos bajo los cuales Descartes las codifica, marcan un inicio, la génesis histórica del «espacio de lo mental» en cuanto espacio de la subjetividad.

Our aim in this paper is to throw some light on the kind of normativity characteristic of human knowledge. We describe the epistemic normative domain as that field of human agency defined by knowledge understood as an achievement. The normativity of knowledge rests on the contribution of the epistemic agent to the fulfillment of certain tasks. Such contribution is epistemically significant when the agent becomes engaged in the obtaining of success. Finally, we identify some features associated with full epistemic agency and elucidate what we mean by engagement by appealing to the idea of adopting an epistemic perspective. En este artículo pretendemos arrojar luz sobre la normatividad propia del conocimiento humano. Describimos el dominio normativo epistémico como un campo de agencia humana que está definido por el conocimiento entendido como logro. La normatividad del conocimiento se apoya en la contribución del agente epistémico a la consecución de ciertas tareas. Tal contribución es epistémicamente significativa cuando el agente llega a participar en la consecución del éxito. Por último identificamos algunos rasgos asociados con la agencia epistémica completa, y aclaramos lo que queremos decir con implicación apelando a la idea de adoptar una perspectiva epistémica.

En Self-Constitution. Agency, Identity, and Integrity (2009), Christine Korsgaard defiende la conclusión de que el imperativo categórico rige la acción humana porque es el único principio que permite alcanzar la unidad psíquica plena, la cual, según Korsgaard, es un prerrequisito esencial para la acción efectiva. Para los agentes humanos, alcanzar esa unidad -que consiste en hacer coherentes distintos impulsos hacia la acción- es una actividad constante, denominada "autoconstitución". De acuerdo con Korsgaard, ésta es la fuente originaria de la normatividad y de las identidades prácticas e incluso de la identidad personal. Después de exponer las ideas centrales del libro, presento dos objeciones: primero, critico la equiparación del imperativo categórico con la autoconstitución exitosa, pues no toda falla de auto-constitución es una falla moral. Segundo, argumento que la tesis de que la identidad personal es producto de la autoconstitución es problemática y que, al defenderla, Korsgaard confunde identidad práctica con identidad personal. In Self-Constitution. Agency, Identity, and Integrity (2009), Christine Korsgaard argues that the categorical imperative rules human action because it is the sole principle that allows us to reach the complete psychic unity that, Korsgaard thinks, is an essential prerequisite for effective action. Reaching this unity -which consists in making cohere diverging impulses for action- is for human agents a constant activity called "self-constitution." According to Korsgaard, this activity is the source of normativity, of human practical identities and even of personal identity. After explaining the main ideas of the book, I present two objections. First, I criticize the linkage of the categorical imperative to successful self-constitution, for not every failure of the latter counts as a moral failure. Second, I argue that the thesis that personal identity is a product of self-constitution is problematic and that it betrays a confusion between practical identity and personal identity

Este artículo discute varios modos de entender la racionalidad de la ciencia como racionalidad práctica. En primer lugar, rechaza los modelos instrumentalistas de la racionalidad científica, porque no pueden mostrar la independencia y la bondad de fines definidos para la ciencia, en relación con los cuales se establece la fuerza normativa de las razones. La errónea identificación de fines y valores es lo que provoca numerosas confusiones en este terreno. Se critica, en segundo lugar, un modelo de racionalidad práctica basado en el dominio de saberes tácitos y habilidades. Cualquiera de los modelos propuestos ha de acomodarse a tres restricciones sobre lo que puede ser una "buena razón" dentro de la ciencia y que conforman la identidad práctica y el rostro normativo de la ciencia: publicidad, fiabilidad y autoridad reflexiva. This paper discusses some ways of understanding scientific rationality as practical rationality. Firstly, instrumental models of the rationality of science are rejected. The instrumentalist can hardly establish the independence and goodness of certain ends. In the case of science, determinate ends with respect to which the normative force of our reasons is established do not seem to exist. A false identification of ends with values is what causes many of the confusions. Secondly, a model of practical rationality based in the mastery of tacit knowledge and skills is criticized. Any model of scientific rationality should take into account three constraints about what a "good reason" in scientific matters is, constraints that shape the practical identity and the normative face of science: the constraints of publicity, reliability and reflective authority

¿Cómo pensar hoy la naturaleza y el valor de la reflexión filosófica? La influencia omnipresente del modelo del conocimiento experto parece exigir una autocomprensión de la filosofía como una disciplina entre las disciplinas. Este artículo propone que la filosofía debe resistirse a esta tentación. Defenderé, por tanto, una especie de "excepcionalismo" para la filosofía basado en la idea de que no puede pretender ser una disciplina. Sea o no cierto que hoy en día las actividades filosóficas estén legitimadas institucionalmente por los principios de un Canon, voy a sugerir una estrategia de transgresión del Canon al rechazar cualquier asimilación de la filosofía a una disciplina, aunque fuera "anómala". La filosofía debe contribuir a la comprensión de nuestros diversos modos de conceptualizar y de transformar el mundo y dar sentido a la experiencia humana. La filosofía debe reclamar para sí una "estado de excepción" y abrir un espacio para cuestionar todo aquello que parece obvio e incuestionable. How to think today about the nature and value of the philosophical reflection? The pervasive influence of the model of expert knowledge seems to require a selfunderstanding of philosophy as a discipline among the disciplines. This paper argues that philosophy should resist this move. So I will defend a kind of "exceptionalism" for philosophy based on the idea that philosophy cannot pretend to be a discipline. Be true or not that philosophical activities are nowadays institutionally legitimized by the principles of a Canon, I will suggest a strategy of transgression of the Canon by rejecting any assimilation of philosophy to a discipline, even if an "anomalous" one. Philosophy must contribute to the understanding of our different ways of conceptualizing and transforming the world and to make sense of human experience. The thesis of this paper is that philosophy must claim a "state of emergency" for itself a open a space for freely questioning what it appears as obvious and unchallengeable

Este artículo presenta lo que denomino la “paradoja topológica de la filosofía”. La filosofía reclama un lugar en el conjunto de los saberes enseñables y, por ende, en la universidad; pero deviene u-tópica en su idea del ejercicio libre de su actividad. La filosofía no puede encontrar un lugar en la universidad y no puede dejar de reclamarlo. La paradoja tiene varias dimensiones, pero es irresoluble. Por eso, su futuro en la universidad exigirá una renuncia a situarse en un lugar disciplinar. Podrá quizá hacerse un hueco entre los saberes si finalmente acepta responder no ante sí misma sino ante las exigencias de lo prefilosófico

What is the concept of knowledge for? What does it do for us? This question cannot be severed from considerations about what we do by using it. In this paper, I propose to view the point of our concept of knowledge in terms of a device for acknowledging epistemic authority in a social and normative space in which we share valuable information. It is our way of collectively expressing the acknowledgment we owe to others because of their being creditable when engaged in the task of knowing. By using the concept of knowledge we are not just marking the epistemic positions we occupy, we are also acknowledging epistemic authority and indicating the advisability of taking oneself or others as “ready” for the transmission of authority.

In this paper, I examine the so-called disjunctive views on hallucinations. I argue that neither of the options open to the disjunctivist is capable of accommodating basic phenomenological facts about hallucinatory experiences and the explanatory demands behind the classical argument from hallucination. A positive characterization of the hallucinatory case is not attractive to a disjunctivist once she is disposed to accept certain commonalities with veridical experiences. Negative disjunctivism glosses the hallucinatory disjunct in terms of indiscriminability. I will argue that this move either renounces to characterize phenomenally the hallucinatory experience or does not take seriously questions about why indiscriminability is possible in the phenomenal realm.

In this paper, it is argued that both the informer and the hearer in a testimonial situation deserve epistemic merit insofar as they contribute to the collaborative achievement of sharing knowledge. The paper introduces a distinction between the ideals of self-sufficiency and epistemic autonomy. The autonomous exerciseof our epistemic agency is very often carried out under strong conditions of epistemic dependence. Testimony exhibits a kind of social dependence that does not threaten the autonomy of the subjects that need to consider their own epistemic capacities. When involved in a testimonial situation, both speaker and hearer declare, at least implicitly, the standings they occupy in an epistemic space and are obliged to recognise certain epistemic requirements.

RESUMEN: Este artículo revisa contribuciones recientes a la filosofía de la tecnología tomando como punto de partida una reflexión sobre la naturaleza de los artefactos, su conocimiento y las condiciones normativas vinculadas a su producción y uso. Se discute, en primer lugar, en torno al realismo/anti-realismo respecto a las clases artificiales según la teoría funcional y la teoría histórico-intencional de los artefactos. En segundo lugar, se abordan cuestiones relativas a las peculiaridades del conocimiento funcional y el privilegio epistémico del conocimiento que los hacedores tienen de sus productos. Por último, se retoma el tradicional debate sobre los artefactos como portadores de valor y sobre la dimensión normativa de la técnica.ABSTRACT: In this paper, I review recent contributions to the philosophical reflection on technology. I take as starting point discussions on the ontological nature of artifacts and then discuss questions regarding how we get to know about them and the normative dimensions involved in the making and use of artifacts. Firstly, I introduce the debate between realists and antirealists about the nature of artificial kinds and how the issue is respectively addressed by functional and intentional-historical conceptions. Secondly, I raise some questions about the specificity of functional knowledge as a kind of know-how and discuss about the epistemic privilege of the makers-knowledge. The last section takes up again the traditional debate on artifacts as value bearers and the normative dimensions of technology.

En este trabajo se discute acerca de la naturaleza pública de la ciencia y se ofrece un argumento en contra de una generalizada privatización de la ciencia y la consideración del conocimiento científico como mercancía. La estructura normativa y de legitimación de la producción de conocimiento científico habla en contra de la privatización. A partir de las dicotomías público-secreto y público-privado (en términos de bienes económicos), se analizan las razones a favor y en contra de que la ciencia pueda ser considerada como un bien público. Los mecanismos institucionales de la ciencia (esencialmente en sus prácticas de comunicación) están dirigidos hacia la constitución de resultados científicos, que aparecen entonces en sus rasgos de bienes públicos no-exclusivos y no-rivales, disponibles para cualquier tipo de uso. El contraste y la diferenciación con la gestión público-privado en el sistema tecnológico proporciona igualmente argumentos a favor de la publicidad de la ciencia.

El presente trabajo trata de ensayar la utilidad metateórica de una distinción filosófica acuñada por ciertos pensadores españoles —la distinción entre “dintorno”, “entorno” y “contorno”— a la hora de reordenar críticamente las diferentes posiciones teóricas en torno al problema de la determinación de los límites del Derecho (el problema de la autonomía o la demarcación de la categoría jurídica) y particularmente para clarificar los términos y las implicaciones del debate entre concepciones positivistas y post-positivistas.

Recent developments in pattern analysis research have made this methodology suitable for the study of the processes that are set in motion in psychological interventions. Outcome research, based on the comparison between clinical results from treatment and control groups, has leveraged our empirical knowledge about the efficacy of psychological interventions. However, these methods of research are not precise enough for the analysis of these processes. On the contrary, pattern analysis could be a powerful tool to study moment-to-moment interactions typical of psychological interventions. This is methodology is relevant because clinical psychology is experiencing a paradigm shift from a protocol for syndrome perspective to a principle-based and person-centered intervention. This evidence-based, theory-grounded, and process-oriented paradigm of clinical intervention needs new research methods to thrive. The analysis of the therapeutic relationship built into the verbal interaction between the clinician and the client is one of the cornerstones of this new era of research. So, the purpose of this article is three-fold: to discuss the role of the verbal interaction pattern analysis in the clinical context to the development of the principle-based clinical psychology, to analyze the patterns of verbal interaction in a clinical case, and to compare the results using two different methods. To reach these purposes, using the observational methodology, we have coded the verbal interaction of 16 clinical sessions with a person diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder. We have analyzed the data using sequential analysis and pattern recognition algorithms. We have been able to detect typical patterns during different phases of psychological intervention. Finally, the conceptual, methodological, and empirical implications of this study will be discussed within the realms of pattern analysis research and principle-based clinical psychology.

In this chapter, we argue against what we call the atomist assumption that has governed the recent recovery of artefacts in metaphysics. By drawing some parallels between artefacts and concepts, we hold a relational and holistic view on the nature of artefacts. Artefacts acquire their identity conditions only within a constellation of other artefacts and objects. We will also defend that the identity of an artefact is given by the affordances that constrain our agency within a cultural niche or transformative environment. As constitutive elements of these environments, artefacts do not stand isolated; what they are, fixed by what they afford, cannot be specified without referring to other artefacts, (natural) objects, and the (normative) practices that regulate the engagement with them.