SOME ISSUES REGARDING ARTIFACTS

Authors

  • Paula TOMI Faculty of Philosophy, University of Bucharest, Romania. Email: paulapompilia@yahoo.com.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphil.2020.3.10

Keywords:

artifacts, mind-dependent objects, intended function, natural kinds, intended feature, Amie Thomasson, L. R. Baker

Abstract

When it comes to artifacts, the functional accounts define them as objects that have an intended function. This function is considered essential for them and is used to classify artifacts and differentiate them. However, functional accounts of artifacts face some serious criticism. It seems that a function is neither essential, nor sufficient for an artifact. Thomasson offers a new perspective on artifacts. The author defines artifacts based on their intended feature. A feature may, of course, be a function but does not have to be just that. Generally speaking, intended features are norms of how to treat that specific artifact. Such an account is able to escape the criticism raised against functional accounts. In this article is presented Baker’s functional account of artifacts and some criticism that can be raised for such an account. The second part of the article critically introduces Thomasson’s account for artifacts. The aim of this article is to support Thomasson’s account against a functional perspective.

References

Baker, Lynne, Rudder, ‘The Shrinking Difference Between Artifacts and Natural Objects’, in Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, Piotr Boltuc (ed.), American Philosophical Association Newsletters 07(2), Spring 2008, pp. 1-8.

Houkes, Wybo and Vermaas, Pieter, ‘Actions Versus Functions: A Plea for an Alternative Metaphysics of Artifacts’, in The Monist, vol. 87, no. 1, On Function, January 2004, pp. 52-71.

Losonsky, Michael, ‘The Nature of Artifacts’, in Philosophy, vol. 65, no. 251, January 1990, pp. 81-8.

Merricks, Trenton, Objects and Persons, Oxford: Clarendon (Oxford University Press), 2001.

Thomasson, Amie, ‘Realism and Human Kinds’, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 67, No. 3, November 2003, pp. 580-609.

_____ ‘The Controversy over the Existence of Ordinary Objects’, in Philosophy Compass, June, 5(7), 2010, pp. 591 – 601.

_____ ‘Public Artifacts, Intentions and Norms’, in Pieter Vermaas et. al., eds. Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-Made World, Springer: Synthese Library, Switzerland, 2014: 45-62.

Unger, Peter, ‘There are no Ordinary Things’, in Synthese, 41, 1979, pp. 117-54.

Downloads

Published

2020-12-20

How to Cite

TOMI, P. . (2020). SOME ISSUES REGARDING ARTIFACTS. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philosophia, 65(3), 183 –. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphil.2020.3.10

Issue

Section

Articles