Simondon’s Du mode d’existence des objets techniques from 1958 is a most wondrous book. It is not only Simondon’s theory of technology in itself that fascinates me, but rather the intimate closeness with particular technical objects that resonates  through the whole text and marks a fundamental break with the greek heritage of thinking about technology as a unified and coherent force. When Simondon reasons over numerous pages on the difference between a diode and a triode, he accords significance to something that was considered insignificant by virtually every philosopher in history. By conferring a sense of dignity to technology, a certain profoundness, he is able to see heterogeneity and particularity where others before him just saw the declinations of the singular principle of techné. In a distinctly beautiful passage, Simondon argues that “technological thinking” itself is not totalizing but fragmenting:

“L’élément, dans la pensée technique, est plus stable, mieux connu, et en quelque manière plus parfait que l’ensemble ; il est réellement un objet, alors que l’ensemble reste toujours dans une certaine mesure inhérent au monde. La pensée religieuse trouve l’équilibre inverse : pour elle, c’est la totalité qui est plus stable, plus forte, plus valable que l’élément.” (Simondon 1958, p. 175)

And my translation:

“In technological thinking, it is the element that is more stable, better known and – in a certain sense – more perfect than the whole; it is truly an object, whereas the whole always stays inherent to the world to a certain extend. Religious thinking finds the opposite balance: here, it is the whole that is more stable, stronger, and more valid than the element.”

Philosophical thinking, according to Simondon, should strive to situate itself in the interval that separates the two approaches, technological thinking and religious thinking, concept and idea, plurality and totality, a posteriori and a priori. Here, the question of How? is not subordinate to the question of Why? because it is the former that connects us to the world that we inhabit as physical beings. Understanding technology means understanding how the two levels relate and constitute a world. There are two forms of ethics and two forms of knowledge that must be combined both intellectually and practically. Simondon obviously strives to do just that. I would argue that Philip Agre’s concept of critical technical practice is another attempt at pretty much the same challenge.

Post filed under epistemolgy, method, philosophy.


  1. Il me semble qu’il n’y a pas deux “formes” d’éthique mais que l’éthique est la mise en relation des deux niveaux dont tu parles.
    Peut-on parler de forme concernant ces deux niveaux ? La distinction entre pensée technique et religieuse n’est-elle pas justement une séparation entre le formel et l’informel ?

  2. Bernhard says:

    Bonjour Samuel,

    Non et non.

    Simondon est quand même assez clair sur le premier point, il parle explicitement d’une éthique liée aux techniques et une autre liée à la pensée religieuse. Dans les faits les deux s’interpellent mais Simondon fait bien la distinction de deux formes – dans le sens de deux procédés, deux façons (rien à voir avec la question formel/informel – le terme “forme” est fortement polysémique).

    La distinction entre pensée technique et pensée religieuse chez Simondon s’articule autour du rapport élément / totalité, éthique du comment / éthique du pourquoi.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>