Andrey Pavlenko
Ontological Premises of Technology and design: a Critical Analysis Annotation The article aims to analyse the ontological premises of technology and design. The main problem, expressed as a question, is as follows – are man’s technical projects arbitrary constructions of his consciousness (thinking), as Günter Ropohl supposed, for example, or 1) are they predetermined, as believed Paves Florensky and Martin Heidegger (strong thesis); 2) are they limited, as Friedrich Dessauer suggested (weak thesis). To answer this question, the concept of “ontological Propis” is introduced, with the help of which any objects that are consistent (CO) are designated. Correspondingly, contradictory or non-consistent objects (NCO) are located “outside” the ontological Prescription and are imaginary objects. Most COs exist in the realm of the possible world, and a smaller part exists in the real (empirically given) world. Ignoring the difference between these worlds gives rise to the main temptation of design: the human mind is autonomous and free, and, therefore, ”everything can be designed!” The inaplicability of this claim is shown in the form of three limitations of technology and design: The first limitation: human consciousness (thinking) can design consistent and only consistent objects. “Consistency” is the general requirement of the ontological Propis for all possible and real objects. The second limitation: human consciousness (thinking) can design those and only those objects that are law-conforming (Dessauer). Lawconformity is a requirement of the ontological Prescription for real objects. Third limitation: human consciousness (thinking) can design only those objects that are human-proportional. Human proportion is a requirement of the ontological Propis for real objects. Conclusion: the activity of the designer is not arbitrary but is significantly limited by the ontological Propis.
236
