David Rothenberg Summary

1. David Rothenberg’s central thesis revolves around the concept that technology acts as an agent of human evolution, and is the extension of human presence in the world.
2. Rothenberg formulates his argument by qualifying the generally accepted beliefs about technology and nature as recognized by Heraclitus, Aristotle, and Plato. He contends that technology coincides with the human intent that originally prompted the action. The main argument presented focuses on the idea that there is a continuous and circular process between intention and realization. In other words, human intention leads to technological advancements in order to realize that intention, but the realization only suggests more attention to action. Therefore, technology does
not exist in the absence of human motive that facilitates it.
3. Throughout his whole argument, David Rothenberg makes a couple of assumptions. Rothenberg assumes an anthropocentric stance, which asserts that the value of nature and the environment is relational and dependent upon human interpretation. This assumption aids in establishing the topic of his argument, but can have a limiting factor depending on the audience. Rothenberg’s claim would not have much basis with those who focus their moral considerability outside of orthodox anthropocentrism. Consequently, the claim that technology is necessary to understand nature deteriorates for an objectivist audience that believes that nature is independent of human artifact. In that essence, Rothenberg neglects that particular audience demographic completely as he composes his claim. While he does further refine his assumptions for a general audience with technical definitions, the basic idea and tone still stands throughout his argument. Correspondingly, he also assumes that his audience agrees with the idea of technology as explained by the great philosophers of history. He presents that, “Most of us today, so influenced by Aristotle that we find many of his conclusions banal and obvious, tend implicitly to agree with his view of technology as a means to an end” (Rothenberg 371). However, the author presents this assumption in order to modify it. By assuming that the audience generally accepts the position presented by Aristotle, he organizes an opportunity for the audience to agree with his claim as he contends the philosopher’s view. Laying out Aristotle’s conclusion about technology allows Rothenberg to systematically deconstruct it for the audience. Then he directs the audience towards his claim in the process. Thus, the assumption works in Rothenberg’s favor, as the assumption relies on the rationale of the analysis of the argument as a whole.
4.
David Rothenberg utilizes several examples, distinctions, and analogies to substantiate his claim. He creates the foundation of his argument with logos and examples determined by Heraclitus. Logos as defined by Heraclitus is, “the notion of order from which all Western attempts to claim systematic knowledge of anything are descended” (Rothenberg 369). The author further explains that a part of the logos becomes appreciable when we understand it enough to no longer fear it. Once mastered, a technique allows humanity to further conceptualize what it connotes about nature. Supplementary examples are included to establish this idea. Fire, water, and air are elements of the world that are indiscernible to humans, until they can be transformed into a tool. The ability to use a tool gives way to the comprehension of the mechanics of that tool, which consequently facilitates a space for better understanding of the universe. It is through this thought process that Rothenberg’s central thesis originates. He argues that it is challenging to isolate our explanation of the world from our ability to transform it. The physical process of alternating our world allows us to fathom vast and vaporous concepts through the form of analogies. Rothenberg includes several, including the bow and lyre analogy as presented by Heraclitus. This analogy suggests that there is a backward-turning connection between tools and the universe. Octavio Paz explains that the lyre “consecrates man and thus
gives him a place in the cosmos,” while the bow “shoots him beyond himself” (369). This technical metaphor becomes convoluted as opposites confront the truth through each other. The lyre and bow are mechanically similar in function, but differ in purpose. The lyre is said to establish man in the universe, but the bow is said to remind man that the universe is beyond what can be understood. Rothenberg chooses to include this analogy to reiterate his central thesis. He emphatically revolves around the idea that while technology can assist in further explaining our surroundings, it also establishes more room for inquisition. In conjunction, Rothenberg uses another analogy to constitute the abstraction that technology is necessary in explaining the world and the grand logic surrounding it. He argues that, “Techne is the clearest and most definite type of knowledge, because we immediately understand what it is for” (Rothenberg 369). This statement is used to introduce Socrates analogy of shipbuilders to gods. If we can understand that the purpose of shipbuilders is to build ships, then we can further speculate the purpose of gods. Rothenberg uses this analogy to extend our art toward the limits of can be known. He does this in hopes of conveying to the audience the importance of technology. Through art, we can approach the general from the particular, and seek the elusive truth by simply examining a specific skill. This further develops the overall central thesis.
5. Technology: is the entire logic of artifice, the order of art. It enables humanity to make and shape the world in an ordered way (Rothenberg 373).
Intention: akin to want. It implies an attention to action. Through intention, the world can be formed through our actions (Rothenberg 373).
Extension: how intention operates in a dynamic and expanding manner. It bridges the intention of the deciding being with a tangible record of what is done (Rothenberg 373).
Through these definitions, the author is able to establish technologies logical progression under human influence. It is with continuous human intention and need for extension that technology prevails in nature.
6.
The author does not exactly criticize rival positions, as it would be more appropriate to say that he modifies the positions of those in opposition. David Rothenberg constructs the foundation of his claim around the pre-existing ideas of Aristotle and Plato. He does not completely protest the ideas of these great philosophers, but rather he supports their ideas conditionally. Plato relied on knowledge of technology to suggest an equally normative knowledge of the Good, the Virtuous, or the Beautiful. He coveted and supported knowledge that devoted its attention to the precision of the fullest truth (Rothenberg 370). Aristotle contested this indefiniteness by stating what he saw as a simple and necessary truth: techne is a finite means, separated from the logos (Rothenberg 371). Aristotle sharply defined the separation between the act of creation and the reason behind it. Rothenberg fuses these two positions to formulate his thesis. He does so, because he finds that they both are deficient in explaining the overall purpose of technology. Rothenberg states that technology is never isolated from human objective. He furthers qualifies this claim by affirming that without human intent, technology ceases to exist. It is this interconnectedness between techne and logos that progresses humanity towards the greater truths of the universe. Although it is not the truth that explains the totality of the universe as Plato desired, Rothenberg argues that the knowledge we gain from
technology allows humanity as a whole to comprehend our environment and nature. With Rothenberg’s claim, we may not understand the workings of the universe with simplistic analysis of technology, but we can progress to greater understanding with unceasing intention leading to invention.