|
|
|
| Knowing and Knowledge: On Episteme and Techne |
| Lang Youxing, Da Yang |
| School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In the history of metaphysics, techne is far longer than episteme (usually known as scientific knowledge). In the connection between techne and episteme, if a theory consists in its insight into the being of a certain being, then techne’s control over theories must lie in its “productive” nature. This article tries to explore the connection and nature of episteme and techne, as based on Heidegger’s thoughts on “technology” and his deconstruction of metaphysics, combined with some contemporary thinkers’ views on technology.At the birth of philosophy, there was no clear distinction between episteme and techne, but with the creation (poeisis) of metaphysics the two gradually got separated. After this, Aristotle, on the one hand, criticized Plato’s “eidos”, and, on the other hand, uses the form of “category” which identifies ousia with “being” in the discursive structure of language, thus laying the foundations for the certainty required by “technoscience”. In the construction of this foundation, techne as a producing technique does not only become the guarantee for the “unconcealment” of produced things, but also provides scientific researches with a basis for production, being led and deduced by “mathematics” in the modern context of the “mass production of knowledge”.On talking about techne, Aristotle’s explanation of the “Four Causes” has to be reviewed, which is generally believed to include material cause (hylē), formal cause (eidos), efficient cause (causa efficiens) and final cause (telos). If the formal cause and the final cause (which can also be understood as perfection and completion in the sense of achievement) are taken as an “eidos” in the technical sense, then the completion of this “eidos” is to clearly interpret “production” to “what it is” through techne .Humans （home faber）have always been placed in an awkward position according to the traditional interpretation of “causa efficiens”. It seems that human is not merely a “causa efficiens”, but also a responsibility and an intermediary that brings together the four causes. Regarding human as a “causa efficiens” leads to a long-standing view in cultural anthropology which holds that techne does not belong to culture, but to the category of tools. At the same time, it has also led to the binary opposition of episteme and techne, where techne is only understood as a tool and means to achieve goals, and has never been raised to the level of ontology. Therefore, to apply a subject-object thinking, techne itself is in a dimension that needs to be explained because techne and human are in a binary opposition. Thus, in the metaphysics of techne, the interpretation of techne is elaborated from a variety of viewpoints and perspectives, resulting in a myriad of opinions on “about technology” or “what technology is”.This article argues that techne not only produces (herstellen) but also prescribes episteme for the reason that techne is itself a method of dominating knowledge and, more importantly, it is a way of know-how in the unfolding of metaphysics. With the development of metaphysics, this “know-how” techne gradually forms an absolute rule over episteme, turning philosophy into a technology which moves towards the idea of episteme. Thus, philosophy — the love of wisdom — has from its inception (arche) become a metaphysics of technology. Techne comes from life, but is not based on some type of innovation or branch of knowledge. “Things” at the epistemological level, i. e. at the level of theoretical science, are beings that have been put into the “category” through “accused”. As long as something is in the sequence of categories, it is an existent, which not only conforms to the order for scientific knowledge, but is subject to the presentation (vorstellen) arrangement by the production techne. Where techne stops, knowledge opens up new perspectives and processes of production for techne in the form of scientific research, and the completion of this production is accompanied by the recreation and reproduction of episteme. Thus, if the term of scientific knowledge is understood as referring to a kind of knowledge on the ontic level, the connection between techne and episteme is highlighted as: techne lays the foundation of theoretical science at the level of beings, while the search for so-called knowledge is essentially a search for the “inducing to go forward” （verschulden） method of production in which techne excels, that is, for techne itself.
|
|
Received: 14 January 2020
|
|
|
|
1 Schürmann R.， Heidegger on Being and Acting： From Principles to Anarchy， Bloomington： Indiana University Press， 1987.
2 英］温迪·伯德： 《这就是戈雅》，吴啸雷译，长沙：湖南美术出版社，2018年。
3 Licht F.， Goya， New York： Abbeville Press， 2001.
4 Sontag S.， Regarding the Pain of Others， London： Penguin Books， 2003.
5 Dreyfus H. L.， Being-in-the-World： A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time， New Baskerville： The MIT Press， 1995.
6 Heidegger M.， Time and Being， trans. by Stambaugh J.， Chicago： University of Chicago Press， 2002.
7 古希腊］柏拉图： 《智者》，詹文杰译，北京：商务印书馆，2011年。
8 Heidegger M.， Pathmarks， trans. by McNeil W.， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1998.
9 Plato， Plato： Complete Works， edited by Cooper J. M. & Hutchinson D. S.， Indianapolis： Hackett Publishing Company， 1997.
10 Nehamas A.， Virtues of Authenticity： Essays on Plato and Socrates， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1999.
11 Nussbaum M.， The Fragility of Goodness： Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2001.
12 Simondon G.， On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects， trans. by Malaspina C. & Rogove J.， Minneapolis： Univocal Publishing， 2017.
13 法］皮埃尔·马舍雷： 《从康吉莱姆到福柯：规范的力量》，刘冰菁译，重庆：重庆大学出版社，2016年。
14 德］海德格尔： 《康德与形而上学疑难》，王庆节译，北京：商务印书馆，2018年。
15 德］海德格尔： 《柏拉图的智者》，熊林译，北京：商务印书馆，2015年。
16 陈春文： 《回到思的事情》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2008年。
17 Agamben G.， The Man Without Content， trans. by Albert G.， Stanford： Stanford University Press， 1999.
18 Heidegger M.， Identity and Difference， trans. by Stambaugh J.， New York： Harper & Row Publishers， 1969.
19 Nietzsche， The Will to Power， trans. by Kaufmann W. & Hollingdale R. J.， New York： Random House， 1967.
20 Stiegler B.， The Neganthropocene， trans. by Ross D.， London： Open Humanities， 2018. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
