Talk:Philosophy of technology

rename page
I am renaming this page philosophy of technology to keep with similar naming conventions for orther "philosophy of..." pages (see philosophy of science, philosophy of history or philosophy of mathematics). --mtz206 19:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mario Bunge
Mario Bunge should be included among the philosophers who work on this subject. I'll try to write something, but if someone else does it, it would be better. --Carlito Brigante 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ranking
I have removed the phrase "Possibly the most important living philosopher of technology is ...". As it happens, he wouldn't have been my top choice. But that's not the point - I don't think it is the job of WP to make such judgements. --RichardVeryard 01:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs
I am removing the Blog section. It only contains one blog (Foresighter Blog: Philosophy, Technology and the Future), which despite its impressive-sounding title seems to contain nothing except personal chat, and certainly not relevant here. --RichardVeryard 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A list of contemporary philosophers
The list of contemporary philosophers has grown very large and might best be organised vertically in a table, possibly with a column summarising each ones interests.

significance of Sanduk?
The last section of 'Contemporary philosophy,' mentioning the speculations of one M.I. Sanduk, is poorly written, with no specific citations or explanations, and doesn't seem to be particularly significant relative to other content. I'm going to remove it, pending a clearer, better-justified rewrite by someone more familiar with the work in question.Becoming-nomad (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of topic
This article really could use some clarification in the intro section. It would help to clarify who first used the term "philosophy of technology". Or at least clearly point to a writer/speaker who has prominently used the term, so as to give some sense of context. Otherwise the uninitiated reader wonders, "When, where, how, and by whom was it acknowledged (or at least proposed) that there exists a distinct 'philosophical field' dedicated to the study of technology-related questions? How did it come to pass that 'the philosophy of technology' is considered an entire topic of its own, worthy of an encyclopedia article?"

The article begins with Democritus and Aristotle, which is confusing/misleading in that regard. We need to mind WP:NOR and use secondary sources which refer to the "philosophy of technology", to help clarify where the concept originated within the history of philosophy.

I can start off, by putting a reference to Ernst Kapp up at the beginning for now; based on what I see in the article, that seems like a decent starting point. But I'm a complete newbie to the field myself, so if anybody knows better, by all means please improve on my attempt.

Dabreese00 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Ernst Cassirer into the '20th century' section & strong focus on Heidegger
Perhaps it would make sense to include him, given his closeness to Kapp's work. Someone could also try to relate the Heidegger-Cassirer debate on 'Human Reason', tracing its (potential) implications for (Philosophy of) Technology. Also, the '20th century' section seems to be strongly focussed on Heidegger, which I think is questionable in light of all the other important scholars noted right at the beginning of this section. Basically, everyone of those should get situated in the history briefly, or none of them. This strong focus on Heidegger is suspicious - and this is not connected to the political implications of his work which are not in the scope of this article.

--Gaffataep (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Including Walter Benjamin in '20th century' section
I noticed that Walter Benjamin's page references this page, but he is not mentioned here. Perhaps he would be an appropriate addition to the list of 20th century philosophers. --Juliekallini (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Representation
The article's history as it stands is very Eurocentric, and does not include much if any contributions of the East or other regions. It very focused on the Western impact or view on the philosophy of technology, despite the historical contributions other regions have made. Likewise, it is lacking of female participation to the field. --BucketFro (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)