| Annotation |
The article describes the views of representatives of the philosophy of technology regarding the technical
development impact on social life. During the 20th century, thoughts were different. “Technological optimism”
prevailed in the first half of the 20th century, but after World War II the creation of nuclear weapons brought the
thoughts of negative consequences of technological progress into philosophers’ minds. At the beginning of the
21st century, issues of innovation and risk correlation and the development of new branches of technical knowledge
became decisive. Their study is based on the analysis of T. Veblen’s, F. Dessauer’s and V. M. Gorokhov’s
conceptions. T. Veblen, the author of the “idle class” conception, examined the contradictions between representatives
of the economy real sector and the sphere of circulation. This led him to the idea that the engineers should
control the whole manufacturing. The German scientist and philosopher F. Dessauer had a positive attitude to
technological progress and its impact on social relations. He believed that if a person produces and develops
technology, he becomes similar to the Creator. One more scientist, V. M. Gorokhov believes that the study of
technology, according to the object complexity has the interdisciplinary nature. The technology influence on social
life should be studied from different prospective and should have multicomponent nature. At the beginning
of the 21st century, the technology science is being formed on the basis of natural and technical sciences. The
innovations implementation and the problem of technological risks are of great importance for modern society
development nowadays. |
| References |
1.
Al’-Ani, N. M. Phylosophy of Technology: History and Theory Essays. SPb., OOO «A-PRINT», 2004. (In Rus.)
2.
Veblen, T. B. The Engineers and the Price System. M: Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki, 2018. (In Rus.)
3.
Gorokhov, V. G. The Role and Place of Philosophy of Technology and Contemporary Philosophy and its Organic Connection with Philosophy of Science. Filosofiya nauki, no. 1, pp. 181–199, 2011. (In Rus.)
4.
Gorokhov, V. G. Convergence of biological, informational, nano-and cognitive technologies: a challenge to philosophy (materials of the round table). Question of philosophy, no. 12, pp. 3–23, 2012. (In Rus.)
5.
Gorokhov, V. G. Interdisciplinary Assessment of Scientific and Technical Development. Issues of state and municipal management, no. 2–3, pp. 191–214, 2007. (In Rus.)
6.
Gorokhov, V. G. Scientific Analysis of Systemotechnical Knowledge. In: System research. Methodological problem. M: Nauka, 1974: 44–56. (In Rus.)
7.
Gorokhov, V. G. Technology Assessment as an Applied Philosophy of Technology and Modern Science and Technology Discipline. In: The genius of V. G. Shukhov and the modern era. Materials of the International Congress. M: Bauman Moscow State technical University, 2015: 241–249. (In Rus.)
8.
Gorokhov, V. G., Grunval’d, A. Each Innovation has Social Dimension (Technology Assessment as an Applied Philosophy of Technology). Higher education in Russia Higher education in Russia, no. 5, pp. 135–145, 2011. (In Rus.)
9.
Dessauer, F. Controversy over Technology. perevod s nem. A. Yu. Nesterova. Samara: SGA, 2017. (In Rus.)
10.
Nesterov, A.Yu. Epistemological and Ontological Problems of the Philosophy of Technology: “The Fourth KIngdom” of F. Dessauer. Ontologiya proektirovaniya, no. 3, pp. 377–389, 2016. (In Rus.)
11.
Pavlenko, A. N. Technological Possibility Part III. Friedrich Dessauer’s Views on Technology. Historical and philosophical yearbook. M: Nauka, 2007: 325–352. (In Rus.)
12.
Rozin, V. M. Technology and Its Modern Concepts. M: IF RAN, 2006. (In Rus.)
13.
Philosophy of Technology: History and Modernity. M: IF RAN, 1997. (In Rus.)
14.
Shishkina, T. M. Conspicuous Waste and Representativeness Heuristic. Zhurnal institutsional’nykh issledovanii, no. 9, pp. 68–79, 2017. (In Rus.)
15.
Cavalieri, M. A. R., Lima, I. V. A Foucauldian view of Veblen’s institutionalism: Non-teleology and the interdiscursivity between economics and biology. Economia, no. 14, pp. 199–212, 2013. (In Engl.)
16.
Lawson, T. Process, order and stability in Veblen. Cambridge Journal of Economics, issue 4, pp. 993–1030, 2015. (In Engl.)
17.
Rohkraemer, T., Dessauer, F. A Political Biography of the Biophysicist and Reichstag Deputy from Frankfurt. Historische Zeitschrift, no. 1, pp. 232–234, 2013. (In Engl.) |
