Michel Puech

Experimentation in Technological Wisdom: Can the Political be Kept off the Practice Ground?Gert GoeminneCentre Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumCentre for Sustainable Development, Ghent University, Belgiume-mail: [email protected] Welcome VoiceI met Michel Puech for the first time in 2008 at a workshop entitled ‘Artificial Environments.’ In an interdisciplinary Science and Technology Studies spirit, this 2-day event at Roskilde University gathered philosophers and sociologists of science and technology, as well as architecture theorists. Being rather new to the STS-field at that point, I had read the main authors of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, including Andrew Pickering and Peter‐Paul Verbeek, who were present at the workshop. And sure, I had acquainted myself with the work of the French masters such as Bruno Latour, Gilbert Simondon and Bernard Stiegler. I had never heard of the French philosopher of technology Michel Puech, though. But there he was, startin ..

The opportunities for human flourishing and the threats of human dereliction involved in contemporary technology require a new “software” in philosophy. The technological revolution runs across cultural boundaries. This chapter invites a pragmatic and pluralistic turn in philosophy and ethics for addressing the new global technosphere. The ancient and non-western notion of “wisdom” gives new momentum to this research and leads to specific methods and elements in virtue ethics and care ethics that can be harnessed for delineating a constructive ethics of technology. The morally disruptive environment of the technosphere is construed as a sapiential challenge.

Several trends in contemporary philosophy have revived the question of the good life. This article addresses the more elaborate notion of an “art of living” in the specific context of the technosphere on the basis of recent works in philosophy of technology. It also brings ideas from Asian philosophy and from Buddhism in particular into the discussion. The focus is on the notion of non-confrontation, which could lead to a decisive change in the methods and scope of technology assessment within the humanities. The art of living in the technosphere emerges as an existential virtuosity that pertains to practical wisdom.

I agree with my readers on the necessary alliance of personal agency and collective agency. My point is to prioritize the former. The reasons to prioritize the latter were excellent, and it was undoubtedly a sound decision to start with this scenario: political and institutional improvement of the collectives, enlightened by progressive social sciences. My argument for suggesting a different priority—toward personal microactions and their emergent effects—relies on the opinion that we are stuck in a sustainability crisis due to our current approach. In the question “whose agency now?”, my stress is on “now”.

This commentary on Gert Goeminne’s paper “Postphenomenology and the politics of sustainable technology” elaborates on the subpolitics of technology as a basis for dealing with sustainability issues. It questions the “sustainable technology” phrasing of the issue and focuses on the political/post-political debate to eventually suggest that the politics of sustainable technology is a possible post-political question. Minor disagreements on some philosophy of science references are briefly expressed

From recent philosophy of technology emerges the need for an ethical assessment of the ordinary use of technological devices, in particular telephones, computers, and all kind of digital artifacts. The usual method of academic ethics, which is a top-down deduction starting with metaethics and ending in applied ethics, appears to be largely unproductive for this task. It provides “ideal” advice, that is to say formal and often sterile. As in the opposition between “ordinary language” philosophy and “ideal language” philosophy, the ordinary requires attention and an ethical investigation of the complex and pervasive use of everyday technological devices. Some examples indicate how a bottom-up reinvention of the ethics of technology can help in numerous techno-philosophical predicaments, including ethical sustainability.

The sustainability challenge is to match cultural and natural change. Instead of a political or institutional approach, this implies a cultural revolution in the domain of individual ethics. I defend this ethical priority in sustainability through an a posteriori argument concerning institutional failure and through a conceptual analysis of sustainability as self-reliance and its consequences. Sustainability is not a challenge for our institutions directly. It is a challenge for our lifestyle, our personal lifestyle and our social lifestyle (institutional, economical and political). Our lifestyles are not 'sustainable' in the full sense of the word. They will not last, and they do not meet the requirements of human dignity (ethical and ecological dignity).

Technology is even more than our world, our form of life, our civilization. Technology interacts with the world to change it. Philosophers need to seriously address the fluidity of a smartphone interface, the efficiency of a Dyson vacuum cleaner, or the familiar noise of an antique vacuum cleaner. Beyond their phenomenological description, the emotional experience acquires moral significance and in some cases even supplies ethical resources for the self. If we leave this dimension of modern experience unaddressed, we may miss something of value in contemporary life. Combining European humanism, Anglophone pragmatism, and Asian traditions, Michel Puech pleads for an "ethical turn" in the way we understand and address technological issues in modern day society. Puech argues that the question of "power" is what needs to be reconsidered today. In doing so, he provides a three-tier distinction of power: power to modify the outer world ; power over other humans ; power over oneself

Several trends in contemporary philosophy have revived the question of the good life. This article addresses the more elaborate notion of an “art of living” in the specific context of the technosphere on the basis of recent works in philosophy of technology. It also brings ideas from Asian philosophy and from Buddhism in particular into the discussion. The focus is on the notion of non-confrontation, which could lead to a decisive change in the methods and scope of technology assessment within the humanities. The art of living in the technosphere emerges as an existential virtuosity that pertains to practical wisdom

I agree with my readers on the necessary alliance of personal agency and collective agency. My point is to prioritize the former. The reasons to prioritize the latter were excellent, and it was undoubtedly a sound decision to start with this scenario: political and institutional improvement of the collectives, enlightened by progressive social sciences. My argument for suggesting a different priority—toward personal microactions and their emergent effects—relies on the opinion that we are stuck in a sustainability crisis due to our current approach. In the question “whose agency now?”, my stress is on “now”

I try to find a path from recent philosophy of technology to the fundamental issues of sustainability - issues that I do not consider to be ultimate questions, but hints at the question of wisdom in a technological age. Basically, human enhancement involves a technophilic stance and a tendency to transhumanism. In contrast, sustainability issues are usually characterized by a moderate technophobic stance and a classical humanistic trend. But I believe that a new global set of common values is forming in both directions and I try to merge the two paths.