Scholarlink

<p>In his recent commentary to our article „Being Blinded by the Concrete – On the Extractivist Blindspot of the Empirical Turn in Philosophy of Technology” (Vandemeulebroucke et al., <CitationRef CitationID="CR4">2025</CitationRef>), Jeroen Hopster (<CitationRef CitationID="CR2">2025</CitationRef>) agrees with us that the so-called ‘empirical turn’, perhaps even large parts of the philosophy of technology, has a blindspot for the environmental-social ontogenesis of technological artefacts. Yet, while he “underwrite[s] this general diagnosis”, he would like to see a “somewhat different cure” (Hopster, <CitationRef CitationID="CR2">2025</CitationRef>, p. 1). We appreciate Hopster’s critical engagement with our work and would hence like to offer a reply in our turn.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Non-extractivist Technology and Non-Extractivist Thought: A Reply To J. Hopster

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月13日

查看全文
  • Julia Pelger,
  • Tijs Vandemeulebroucke,
  • Larissa Bolte

摘要

In his recent commentary to our article „Being Blinded by the Concrete – On the Extractivist Blindspot of the Empirical Turn in Philosophy of Technology” (Vandemeulebroucke et al., 2025), Jeroen Hopster (2025) agrees with us that the so-called ‘empirical turn’, perhaps even large parts of the philosophy of technology, has a blindspot for the environmental-social ontogenesis of technological artefacts. Yet, while he “underwrite[s] this general diagnosis”, he would like to see a “somewhat different cure” (Hopster, 2025, p. 1). We appreciate Hopster’s critical engagement with our work and would hence like to offer a reply in our turn.