ANTIQUE PARADIGM OF TECHNOLOGY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr2016/72237

Keywords:

techne, ancient technology, ancient philosophy, philosophy, worldview, trade, technology paradigm

Abstract

The purpose is to find out the specifics of the ancient paradigm of technology. Task: to determine the ancient worldview universals that define ancient picture of the world; find out the meaning of the ancient concept of «techne». Methodology. To perform the tasks it was used the paradigm approach to the historical transformation technology, and was made historical reconstruction and explication of the production and development of technology in antiquity. Using a functional approach has revealed a close, the inextricable link between the constitution and functioning of ancient technology and ancient philosophical universals. The elements of scientific novelty is, first, the paradigm approach to historical transformation technology, and secondly, research technology within the ideological world view that is due to the domination of ancient philosophical wagon filled with new content, different from the archaic paradigm of technology and paradigms machinery Ancient East. Conclusions. Proved that historical transformation technology primarily due to dramatic changes philosophical Universal, which in turn lead to a new world and a new content and technology space in it. Proved that the development of technology and its inclusion in an ideological view of the world contributed to several factors: first, the ancient world view is no longer a purely mythological, woven natural-philosophical ideas about the universe; basis of ancient philosophy cosmocentrism with signs of logocentrism. Second, the ability to think through concepts, form them, allowing isolate rational considerations of practical everyday experience was the great achievement of ancient philosophy, the first attempt at scientific understanding of the world, the precondition and foundation of science as such. Thirdly, purely mechanical, technical model of the world that started the ancient Greek philosophers, initiated the transition to a scientific rational explanation of nature, unlike the previous one - irrational and mystical. Fourth, despite the fact that ancient man was still dependent on the nature of space needed, he was sufficiently autonomous from traditional models of life and behaviour in the implementation of his career. Fifthly, the principle of creative development, production of the new, which was characteristic of the macrocosm, nature, spread his microcosm - man.

Author Biography

O. F. Tereshkun, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University

О. F. Tereshkun

References

Antologiya mirovoy filosofii. T. 1, ch. 1: Filosofiya drevnosti i srednevekovya (Anthology of the World Philosophy. Vol. 1., part 1: The philosophy of antiquity and the Middle Ages). Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1969. 576 p.

Aristotel. Metafizika. T. 1 [Metaphysics. Vol. 1]. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1976. 64–367 pp.

Aristotel. Fizika. T. 3. [Physics]. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1981, pp. 59-262.

Boiko O. Antropolohichnyi vymir tekhniky [Anthropological measurement of technology]. Svitohliad. Filosofiia. Relihiia [Outlook. Philosophy. Religion], 2014, vol. 5, pp. 5-14.

Gorokhov V.G. Kontseptsii sovremennogo estestvoznaniya i tekhniki [Concepts of modern natural science and technology]. Moscow, INFRA-M Publ., 2000. 608 p.

Diogen Laertskiy. Zenon. Kn. VII: O zhizni, ucheniyakh i izrecheniyakh znamenitykh filosofov [Zenon. Vol. VII: On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers]. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1986, pp. 248-306.

Devis E. Tekhnognozis: mif, magiya i mistitsizm v informatsionnuyu epokhu [Tehnognozis: myth, magic and mysticism in the information age]. Yekaterinburg, Ultra. Kultura Publ., 2008. 480 p.

Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. Aristotel i pozdnyaya klassika [History of ancient aesthetics. Aristotle and later classics]. Moscow, OOO AST Publ., 2000. 880 p.

Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. Itogi tysyacheletnego razvitiya. Kn. 1 [History of ancient aesthetics. The results of the millennium development. Vol. 1]. Moscow, OOO AST Publ., 2000. 832 p.

Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. Itogi tysyacheletnego razvitiya. Kn. 2 [History of ancient aesthetics. The results of the millennium development. Vol. 2]. Moscow, OOO AST Publ., 2000. 688 p.

Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. Rannyaya klassika [History of ancient aesthetics. Early classics]. Moscow, OOO AST Publ., 2000. 624 p.

Losev A.F. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki. Sofysty. Sokrat. Platon [History of ancient aesthetics. Sophists. Socrates. Plato]. Moscow, OOO AST Publ., 2000. 846 p.

Lukianets V.S., Kravchenko O.M., Ozadovska D.V. Sfera svitohliadnoho znannia: novitnia transformatsiia Naukovyi svitohliad na zlami stolit [Scope of philosophical knowledge, the latest transformation. Scientific outlook at the turn of the century]. Kyiv, PARAPAN Publ., 2006. pp. 11-21.

Lurye S.Ya. Demokrit. Teksty. Perevod. Issledovaniya [Democritus. Texts. Translation. Research]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1972. 664 p.

Platon. Dialogi [Dialogues]. Moscow, OOO AST Publ., 2001. 384 p.

Platon. Timey. T. 3, ch. 1 [Timaeus. Vol. 3, part 1]. Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1971. pp. 531-680.

Rozhanskiy I.D. Drevnegrecheskaya nauka. Ocherky yestestvennonauchnykh znaniy v drevnosti. Ser. «Biblioteka Vsemirnoy istorii yestestvoznaniya» [Ancient Greek science. Sketches of scientific knowledge in antiquity. Series "Library of the world history of science".]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1982. pp. 197-275.

Simonenko O.D. Istoriya tekhniki i tekhnicheskikh nauk: filosofsko-metodologicheskiy analiz evolyutsii distsipliny [History of technology and technical sciences: the philosophical and methodological analysis of the evolution of the discipline]. Moscow, IIET RAN Publ., 2005. 218 p.

Shukhardin S.V. Sovremennaya nauchno-tekhnicheskaya revolyutsiya: Istoricheskoye issledovaniye [The modern scientific and technological revolution: Historical research]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1970. 255 p.

Stepin V.S. Filosofskaya antropologiya i filosofiya kultury [Philosophical anthropology and philosophy of culture]. Moscow, Akademicheskiy proekt; Alma Mater Publ., 2015. 542 p.

Tereshkun O. Arkhaichna paradyhma tekhniky [Archaic technology paradigm]. Naukovyi visnyk Chernivetskoho universytetu. Filosofiia [Scientific Bulletin of Chernivtsi University. Philosophy], 2015, vol. 754, pp. 119-125.

Shukhardin S.V., Laman N.K., Fedorov A.S. Tekhnika v yeye istoricheskom razvitii. Ot poyavleniya ruchnykh orudiy truda do stanovleniya tekhniki mashinno-fabrichnogo proizvodstva [Technology in its historical development. From the appearance of hand-held instruments of labor to the formation of the art machinery and factory production]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1979. 412 p.

Chernyak V.Z. Istoriya i filosofiya tekhniki [History and philosophy of technology]. Moscow, KNORUS Publ., 2006. 576 p.

Shadevald V. Ponyatiya «priroda» i «tekhnika» u grekov. Filosofiya tekhniki v FRG [The concepts of "nature" and "techology" of the Greeks. Philosophy of technology in Federal Republic of Germany]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1989. pp. 90-103.

Yakovets Yu.V. Istoriya tsivilizatsii [Civilization history]. Moscow, VlaDar Publ., 1995. 459 p.

Devis E. Techgnosis: Myth, magic and mysticism in the age of information. New York, Harmony Books Publ., 1998. 456 p.

Hronszky І. Technological «Paradigms»: Cognitive Traditions and Communities in Technological Change. Available at: http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieHron.htm.

Tripathi A.K. Postphenomenological investigations of technological experience. AI & Society, 2015, vol. 30, issue 2, pp. 199-205. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-014-0575-2.

Published

2016-06-22

How to Cite

Tereshkun, O. F. (2016). ANTIQUE PARADIGM OF TECHNOLOGY. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, (9), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr2016/72237

Issue

Section

THE MAN IN TECHNOSPHERE