In philosophy,
sociology
and the arts,
the word "biofact" is a hybrid
between an artifact and living being, or between concepts of nature and technology.
History
of the Concept
Biofact was introduced as a neologism
in 2001 by the German philosopher Nicole C. Karafyllis and fuses the words artifact and bios.
In 2003, Karafyllis published the book Biofakte (in German), which is
commonly used as reference for the introduction of the term.
According to Karafyllis, the word biofact
first appeared in a German article (entitled 'Biofakt und Artefakt') in 1943,
written by the Austrian protozoologist Bruno M. Klein.
Addressing both microscopy and philosophy, Klein named a biofact something that is a visible dead product emerging from a
living being while this being is still alive (e.g. a shell). However, Klein's
distinction operated with the difference biotic/abiotic and dead/alive, not
with nature/technology and growth/man-made.
Philosophy
of the Concept
With the term 'biofact,
Karafyllis wants to emphasize that living entities can be highly artificial due
to methods deriving from agriculture, gardening (e.g. breeding) or biotechnology
(e.g. genetic engineering, cloning). Biofacts show signatures of culture
and technique. Primarily, the concept aims to argue against the common
philosophical tradition to summarize all kinds of living beings under the
category nature.
The concept biofact questions if the phenomenon of growth is and was a
secure candidate for differentiating between nature and technology. For the philosophy
of technology the questions arise if a)
biotechnology and agriculture should not be an integral part of reflexion, thereby adding
new insights to the common focus on the machine
and the artifact, and if b) established concepts of technique and technology
which stress artificiality shouldn't be modified. Karafyllis regards the
inclusion of biofacts into a theory of techniques as a chance, to reformulate
classic concepts of design and construction
for defining the making of artifacts. In her view, biofacts depend on the
method of provocation.
For the philosophy of nature, biofacts highlight a need to clarify if nature is
self-explanatory in every case. Biophilosophy
is challenged to newly reflect upon the categories organism and living being.
In the philosophy of science, approaches are challenged which only focus on the category
thing (or epistemic thing) without historizing the technicality, mediality and
materiality of its emerging as a living object. For the sociology of science the biofact concept is fruitful to discuss the exclusiveness
of scientific knowledge (the role of the expert) while making scientific objects
which are released into the lifeworld
or public sphere. Particularly because the biofact concept deals with the phenomenon
of growth and the establishing of a self, it is also influential in the
philosophical disciplines phenomenology, anthropology
and ontology.
It was Jürgen Habermas who recently stressed the anthropological consequences if
mankind gives up the differentiation of "coming into being" and
"making".
Artifacts are artificial, i.e.
man-made objects. Contrary to biofacts, they cannot be found in nature.
Therefore, biofacts demarcate an ontological intersection. They are partially
man-made, but growing. Like artifacts, they have been made for a certain utility.
Biofacts can be seen as biotic artifacts which show their character as hybrids
in multifold perspectives.
The term is also enabling
philosophers to criticize some concepts in technoscience,
where the union of scientific knowledge about nature and the technical creation
of technonature is seen as progress in the political sense.
The term has also been adopted in the new BioArt, not rarely without using its
critical impacts.
SUBSCRIBERS - ( LINKS) :FOLLOW
/ REF / 2 /
Findleverage.blogspot.com
Krkz77@yahoo.com
+234-81-83195664
No comments:
Post a Comment