# PhiloTech_Essay_Max_Franzen  ## Metadata - Author: [[readwise.io]] - Full Title: PhiloTech_Essay_Max_Franzen - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Document Tags: [[refereeing]] - Summary: This essay discusses how a designer's intentions influence the proper function of an artifact. It argues that while the designer's intent is important, it is not the sole factor, as artifacts can gain new uses over time due to social changes and user interpretations. Ultimately, the proper function of an artifact is shaped by a combination of the designer's goals and the evolving context in which it is used. - URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/267475790 ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > In this essay, the focus will be on the key factor of the creator’s intentions and its part in the development of proper functions. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk8608csbajnftc4b2r0d87b)) > Starting with the definition of the used terms and ideas, I will proceed to suggest why the designer’s intentions are indeed an important part of the development of a proper function, but why this is neither the sole defining point, set in stone, nor easily definable. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk8609nw6sjc43kp42vj74gy)) - Note: is it though? > In the context of philosophical discussion, the term of a "proper function" refers to the purpose an artifact is understood to fulfill. This purpose can range from a historical or social understanding, to the straightfor- ward providing of a solution to a specific problem. First, it was described > in Millikan’s book "Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, 1984" on evolutionary theories and, in progression, repeatedly defended by the author, evolving to a widely used philosophical concept (Millikan, 1989). The concept of proper functions itself, originating from a differen- tiation between accidental functions and "proper functions" of biological adaptations, e.g. the heart’s ability to pump blood and the byproduct of it making noise while doing so, developed into a term used to describe the defining properties of human-made artifacts. Therefore, in contempo- rary use, it describes the tasks an artifact is either designed, intended, or structurally best fit to carry out. Furthermore, it incorporates some kind of an intuition an artifact invokes in a potential user, that inexplicably seems to know "what it’s made for." ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk8624fpmctcwbb8qf6e7dg9)) - Note: i am not sure milikan did coin the phrase for artifacts did she? > The specific definition changes with the teleological approach one takes to work with the term and its etiology. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk863qs3tw9f1w9v1yw20kx3)) - Note: not sure this is exacrtly how i wouwld put it > Further on, I will argue which of them have which shortcomings or strong sides and ultimately conclude with a recommendation on how one could answer the title question. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk8668xy1v1836fjzvhpr88z)) - Note: i hope you do > However, if fundamentally modi- fied, it might lose its proper function and therefore become a new object. Therefore, the physical structure contains and communicates through its capabilities the intentions of the creator and limits the different types of uses (Houkes and Vermaas, ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86ac8seefprfz1s7kxtqb4)) - Note: i would have liked more detail on when something can become a new object > For one, the idea that the designer will always be able to account for the only fitting function of the artifact and that this one will always be the most fitting is easily appealed by artifacts that are not "invented or designed" but discovered. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86dzryej742cxv73tfxnyw)) - Note: what do you mean by 'fitting' here? > Therefore, there has to be at least one more defining factor, namely fitting physical properties, that determine the proper functions. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86fynfny1ef8sw5kfrsnqh)) - Note: could this not be incorporated into a designer's intention? > designer happens to be lost to time or similar causes—does its proper function stop to exist? A specific answer to this Schrödinger-esque ques- tion of the existence being tied to the sheer knowledge about it seems hard to formulate, as it links the proper function solely to the object of proper communication of such an intention. The fact that the artifact’s structural integrity inherently incorporates the proper function and an observer could "re-explore" it through trial and error seems to negate this claim, though. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86jt5hd7xpcfv225mtcg70)) - Note: hmmmm 'inherently incorporates' > Furthermore, the intentions stemming from the mind of a designer are indirectly also subject to the social and cultural surroundings, as the designer inherits not only the role of a creator but also that of an inhab- itant in a social setting. Being incredibly subjective and unstable, those intentions are not only hard to communicate but also hard to pin down and might change over time. So then, would only the intention at the first moment of a creation of an object be the one and only intention of the designer, and each other idea or variation of that intention be unable ever to change the initial creation intentions? Or could it change over time without any structural changes to the artifact and therefore create 2 artifacts? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86mwkwmgg7z8p40f0btpjr)) - Note: i am not sure i follow > Together with the difficulty of pinning down an intention that is solely derived from the creator’s conscious and set in stone comes the problem that those intentions are indirectly connected to the social surroundings of the creator. Say two creators design the same artifact with the same features and structural integrity but, being from two different social and cultural backgrounds, they make them with different intentions in mind; is that difference enough to account for the existence of two artifacts? (Preston, 2013) ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86nr6yj1fngbr79rh22d2p)) - Note: but if that is two intentions of the same type... > It is at least as important to account for real-world applied practical performance as it is for the ever-changing context of cultural and societal factors that influence for what and how an artifact is used. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86q11aa46dpm94pvasq15x)) - Note: why is it i important? > Therefore, one might gravitate toward the historical or evolutionary ap- proach, which sets the proper function in the context of constant im- provement and change through a Millikan-like "survival of the fittest" approach (Millikan, 1989). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86rhcgca1mevr01yf8mwk1)) - Note: this would have been clearer with a new title. also, is the focus on intentions just going to drop away for a bit? > Combining the notion that an artifact may have a multitude of proper functions and that multiple actors contribute to defining them, this can be framed within the pluralist approach stated by Preston and other philosophers. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk86xwv1035k37qczhp2kcnj)) - Note: the pluralist approach of preston doesn't include intentions? > The fact that, in our ever-changing world, existing artifacts may accidentally gain new proper functions ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk871pyvmxhh39kw7kg2mnsy)) - Note: being a little loose with 'gain' here. > Those „things“, used by us humans for different reasons, can be defined as „artifacts“, mean- ing physical objects intentionally produced or modified by humans using skill and technique, in order to be used in a specific way or to accom- plish some specific purpose (Vermaas et al., 2011). Therefore, they are distinguishable from natural objects. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83dakssrxc38xgttjrc449)) - Note: bit verbose > Starting with the definition of the used terms and ideas, I will proceed to suggest why the designer’s intentions are indeed an important part of the development of a proper function, but why this is neither the sole defining point, set in stone, nor easily definable. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83gb2jk81w46zq2fpgeg4d)) - Note: bit vague > "Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, 1984" ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83h74jwjjbd9mjjrzgxpy7)) - Note: weird referencing style > The concept of proper functions itself, originating from a differen- tiation between accidental functions and "proper functions" ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83j9ngrahf90b061kqmzgw)) - Note: circular > Therefore, in contempo- rary use, it describes the tasks an artifact is either designed, intended, or structurally best fit to carry out. Furthermore, it incorporates some kind of an intuition an artifact invokes in a potential user, that inexplicably seems to know "what it’s made for." ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83k41hvcjvd0b38g2afxp0)) - Note: hmmm, not the clearest of definiitions. > The specific definition changes with the teleological approach one takes to work with the term and its etiology. > First and foremost, it is important to give an overview of the different approaches on how to define a proper function. > The debate over how to define an artifact’s "proper function" spans over several different philosophical approaches, with the following 3 main the- ories that each offer their own insight and problems. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83m9pt3gd01a6b91ntbz05)) - Note: this is a lot of preamble > Further on, I will argue which of them have which shortcomings or strong sides and ultimately conclude with a recommendation on how one could answer the title question. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83n8hphh965x53m4j20442)) - Note: bit vague > Furthermore, it not only states "what the artifact is made for" but also what it isn’t made for. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83ps1yzqxgh8x8bsfbk5c6)) - Note: is this right? > If an artifact is temporarily repurposed for another use (e.g. a newspaper as a flyswatter), it can function "as" something else without permanently altering its original intended purpose. However, if fundamentally modi- fied, it might lose its proper function and therefore become a new object. Therefore, the physical structure contains and communicates through its capabilities the intentions of the creator and limits the different types of uses (Houkes and Vermaas, 2010). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83scp36p961wahyzj97b0b)) - Note: hmm > : ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83vmyecxkd63qa0w9bs64y)) > The designer’s intentions matter just as much or as little as anybody else’s: ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jk83vqb7qahcmk3j116hff2e)) - Note: ok, good we are focussing on the question