Produced to Use: Combining Two Key Intuitions on the Nature of Artefacts

In this paper we examine the possibilities of combining two central intuitions about artefacts: that they are functional objects, and that they are non-natural objects. We do so in four steps. First we argue that, contrary to common opinion, functions cannot be the cornerstone of a characterisation of artefacts. Our argument suggests an alternative view, which characterises artefacts as objects embedded in what we call use plans. Second, we show that this plan-centred successor of the function-focused view is at odds with the non-naturalness intuition. Third, we show that this intuition can be developed by defining artefacts as produced or human-made objects, but that the resulting definition might collapse into the plan-centred view, and has trouble distinguishing artefact types or kinds. Finally, we propose a division of labour between production and use plans: among objects in general, artefacts are distinguished as human-made objects; within the domain of artefacts, types or kinds are characterised by the use plans in which artefacts are embedded.

[1]  Karen Neander,et al.  The teleological notion of ‘function’ , 1991 .

[2]  R. Kirk.  Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories , 1985 .

[3]  Steven A. Sloman,et al.  The HIPE Theory of Function , 2005, Functional Features in Language and Space.

[4]  Crawford L. Elder,et al.  Real natures and familiar objects , 2004 .

[5]  Ch Kees Dorst,et al.  Design and use as plans: an action-theoretical account , 2002 .

[6]  Ruth Garrett Millikan,et al.  On Clear and Confused Ideas , 2000 .

[7]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  Technical functions: a drawbridge between the intentional and structural natures of technical artefacts , 2006 .

[8]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  The nature of artefacts , 2010 .

[9]  Y. Uchiyamada.  The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill , 2004 .

[10]  Beth Preston,et al.  Why Is a Wing Like a Spoon? A Pluralist Theory of Function , 1998 .

[11]  T. Ingold.  Perception of the Environment , 2011 .

[12]  Ulrich Krohs,et al.  Functions as based on a concept of general design , 2007, Synthese.

[13]  W. Quine.  Speaking of Objects , 1957 .

[14]  Dan Sperber,et al.  Seedless grapes: nature and culture , 2007 .

[15]  M. Heidegger.  The question concerning technology , 2024, East Asian Journal of Philosophy.

[16]  Pawel Garbacz,et al.  Logics of Relative Identity , 2002, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[17]  L. Baker.  Persons and Bodies , 2000, African American Literature in Transition, 1865–1880.

[18]  Lynne Rudder Baker,et al.  The Metaphysics of Everyday Life: An Essay in Practical Realism , 2009 .

[19]  F. Longy.  How biological, cultural and intended functions combine , 2009 .

[20]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  Actions Versus Functions: A Plea for an Alternative Metaphysics of Artifacts , 2004 .

[21]  Paul Bloom.  Intention, history, and artifact concepts , 1996, Cognition.

[22]  S. Suchet-Pearson,et al.  The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill , 2004 .

[23]  Beth Preston.  Of Marigold Beer: A Reply to Vermaas and Houkes , 2003, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[24]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[25]  R. Cummins,et al.  Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology , 2002 .

[26]  Awm Anthonie Meijers,et al.  The ontology of artefacts: the hard problem , 2006 .

[27]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  Ascribing Functions to Technical Artefacts: A Challenge to Etiological Accounts of Functions , 2003, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.