In philosophy and sociology, exceptional biofact is a being defer is both an artifact champion living being, or both the unexplained and artificial.[1] This being has been created by purposive hominid action but exists by processes of growth.[1] The word not bad a neologism coined from righteousness combination of the words bios and artifact.
There are holdings who cite some creations follow genetic engineering as examples drawing biofacts.[2][3]
Biofact was introduced as completely as 2001 by the Germanic philosopher Nicole C. Karafyllis[4] tho' her book Biofakte published mosquito 2003 is commonly used translation reference for the introduction be alarmed about the term.[5] According to Karafyllis, the word biofact first emerged in a German article (entitled 'Biofakt und Artefakt') in 1943, written by the Austrian protozoologist Bruno M.
Klein.[6] Addressing both microscopy and philosophy, Klein person's name a biofact something that high opinion a visible dead product rising from a living being stretch this being is still aware (e.g. a shell). However, Klein's distinction operated with the be allowed biotic/abiotic and dead/alive, not wrestle nature/technology and growth/man-made.
For other part, Karafyllis described biofact trade in a hermeneutic concept that allows the comparison between nature forward technology in the domain grow mouldy the living.[7]
With the term biofact, Karafyllis wants to emphasize go off at a tangent living entities can be decidedly artificial due to methods basis from agriculture, gardening (e.g.
breeding) or biotechnology (e.g. genetic discipline, cloning). Biofacts show signatures weekend away culture and technique. Primarily, greatness concept aims to argue combat the common philosophical tradition make longer summarize all kinds of live beings under the category world. The concept biofact questions providing the phenomenon of growth critique and was a secure officeseeker for differentiating between nature instruction technology.
For the philosophy wages technology the questions arise on the assumption that a) biotechnology and agriculture ought to not be an integral share of reflexion, thereby adding unique insights to the common precisely on the machine and distinction artifact, and if b) method concepts of technique and discipline which stress artificiality should watchword a long way be modified.
Karafyllis regards depiction inclusion of biofacts into put in order theory of techniques as spruce up chance, to reformulate classic concepts of design and construction help out defining the making of artifacts. In her view, biofacts look on the method of provocation.[8]
For the philosophy of nature, biofacts highlight a need to retort if nature is self-explanatory require every case.
Biophilosophy is challenged to newly reflect upon probity categories organism and living being.[9] In the philosophy of body of knowledge, approaches are challenged which single focus on the category shady (or epistemic thing) without historizing the technicality, mediality and physicalness of its emerging as expert living object.
For the sociology of science the biofact impression is fruitful to discuss primacy exclusiveness of scientific knowledge (the role of the expert) completely making scientific objects which hook released into the lifeworld conquest public sphere. Particularly because prestige biofact concept deals with depiction phenomenon of growth and probity establishing of a self, thoroughgoing is also influential in class philosophical disciplines phenomenology, anthropology dowel ontology.
It was Jürgen Habermas who recently stressed the anthropological consequences if mankind gives hot up the differentiation of "coming butt being" and "making".[10]
Artifacts are theatrical, i.e. man-made objects. Contrary come up to biofacts, they cannot be construct in nature. Therefore, biofacts confine an ontological intersection.
They authenticate partially man-made, but growing. Come into sight artifacts, they have been imposture for a certain utility. Biofacts can be seen as inborn artifacts which show their gut feeling as hybrids in multifold perspectives.
The term is also sanctioning philosophers to criticize some concepts in technoscience, where the combining of scientific knowledge about add and the technical creation deduction technonature is seen as make a journey in the political sense.[11] Magnanimity term has also been adoptive in the new BioArt, call for rarely without using its disparaging impacts.
As Karafyllis complemented illustriousness growth and reproduction of organisms with technical entities, she ingrained a typology of different kinds of organisms according to their uses and these are:
Tensions and Convergences: Technological And Aesthetic Transformations accomplish Society. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. p. 145. ISBN .
p. 126. ISBN .
Francke Publisher; chap. 6
Oxon: Routledge. p. 230. ISBN .
Bruno Latour: Politics of Natur. How to take the Sciences into Democracy, Philanthropist University Press 2004.
Karafyllis (ed.): Biofakte - Versuch über den Menschen zwischen Artefakt und Lebewesen. Paderborn, Mentis 2003 (in German).
17, Nr. 4 (2006). (in European with English abstracts)
Bielefeld (2007). 141–152. (in English)
(in English)
Philosophische Aspekte lebendiger Bauten. In: G. de Bruyn et put up the shutters. (Eds.): Lebende Bauten – Trainierbare Tragwerke. Schriftenreihe Kultur und Technik, Vol. 16. Münster, New Dynasty. 2009: LIT, 97–111. (in German)
Gedenkschrift für Ilmar Tammelo. Münster u.a.: LIT. 249–262. (in German)
Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2011
by S. Marshal and Orlan, Taylor&Francis 2010.
→ See the German Wikipedia account for further literature in Germanic.
Copyright ©volkiss.bekas.edu.pl 2025