The philosophy of technology is fundamentally concerned with interrogating the epistemic, ontological, and ethical underpinnings of human engagements with technological systems, artifacts, and infrastructures. It compels us to reflect not only on the instrumental logic that drives technological development—e.g., assumptions of efficiency, optimization, and progress—but also on the deeper ontological and epistemological entanglements that shape human-technology relations. Every technological action is predicated upon implicit presuppositions: that a given tool will augment human capability, that a process will streamline productivity, or that an algorithm will yield objective, data-driven insights. Yet, the philosophy of technology insists upon a more rigorous examination of these assumptions, interrogating whether they are epistemically sound, ethically justified, and socially sustainable.
Technology is an inscription of values, epistemic commitments, and sociopolitical orientations. It reshapes ontological categories, reconfigures epistemic access, and recursively transforms the conditions of human agency. Consider automation in industrial labor: while it enhances efficiency, it simultaneously restructures economic paradigms, erases certain forms of human labor, and generates new ethical dilemmas concerning displacement, dignity, and systemic inequity. Thus, technological development must not be understood merely as a trajectory of linear progress but as a site of contested meanings, emergent affordances, and shifting moral landscapes. The philosophy of technology probes these dynamic interrelations, offering critical insights into how technological choices shape—and are shaped by—human aspirations, institutional logics, and sociocultural matrices (Pitt, 2011, p. xi).
The analysis of technology in rhetoric and writing studies is far from sparse (e.g. Fahnestock, 2013; Hawisher & Selfe, 1991; Lynch & Kinsella, 2013; Miller, 1994, 2009; Selber, 2010, among others). However, engaging with the philosophy of technology forecloses critical questions essential for contemporary rhetorical theorization, some of which might include:
Can algorithms engage in acts of imagination? (Philosophy of imagination)
Are machines capable of interpretation, or do they merely process information? (Material hermeneutics)
How do technical artifacts exhibit emergent quasi-subjective agency? (Transjective-holobiontic rhetoric)
What mechanisms drive the evolution of technical systems from abstract, loosely integrated designs to functionally unified entities? (Concretization)
How does instrumental intentionality condition and constrain human perception? (Postphenomenology)
In what ways do past experiences sediment into habitualized interactions with technology? (Sedimentation)
How do moral frameworks dynamically recalibrate in response to technological innovation? (Technological moral hermeneutics)
By addressing these questions, RW scholars can move towards investigating technological deeper ontological, epistemological, and hermeneutic implications. This approach expands the field’s analytical scope, ensuring it remains attuned to the complex socio-technical enmeshments that define contemporary discourse landscapes.
For example, Don Ihde’s material hermeneutics provides crucial framework for expanding rhetorical inquiry into the philosophy of technology. Rather than conceptualizing objects as inert entities awaiting human description, material hermeneutics posits that technological artifacts actively co-produce meaning. Instruments are not neutral conduits of reality but epistemic agents that mediate, constrain, and construct the intelligibility of the world. Consider an MRI scanner: it does not merely “see” inside the body but translates biological data into electromagnetic signals, constructing a medically intelligible image. This process entails “instrumental intentionalities or built-in selectivities” (Don Ihde, 2015, p. xv)—certain physiological states are rendered visible, while others (e.g., emotional or psychological conditions) are omitted. The MRI scanner does not simply record reality; it actively shapes what is perceptible and knowable. If technological systems possess inherent selectivities, then rhetorical agency must be reconceptualized not as a purely human act but as a techno-hermeneutic praxis— a dynamic, co-constitutive process in which meaning, agency, and discourse emerge through human-machine imbrications. This shift questions orthodox assumptions about rhetorical authorship, interpretation, and persuasion where algorithmic and machinic systems “speak” alongside human rhetors.
Morality as an ecosystem (Kudina, 2024) is another useful framework in the philosophy of technology. It is the idea that moral values change dynamically in response to technology, meaning ethical principles are not fixed or timeless, but instead evolve as people interact with new technologies. They reflect pre-existing moral frameworks, actively reshape and redefine moral concepts, and alter the way moral decisions are made. In fact, they evolve in response to technological change. As moral frameworks adapt to technological shifts, so too do the criteria by which we evaluate credibility and authority. Traditionally, ethos was grounded in human expertise, trustworthiness, and institutional authority. However, in algorithm-driven media environments, credibility has become a distributed phenomenon—an emergent negotiation among users, platforms, and automated systems. Viral misinformation, deepfake technologies, and algorithmically amplified content destabilize conventional markers of credibility, shifting the rhetorical landscape from authority-based ethos tonetworked ethos. In this paradigm, credibility is no longer an intrinsic quality but a collectively adjudicated construct, mediated by digital infrastructures, verification mechanisms, and algorithmic processes.
These examples represent only a fraction of the profound ways in which the philosophy of technology enriches rhetoric and writing studies. The integration necessitates a shift in the field’s expansion of its critical and intellectual scope—one that acknowledges the ontological depth of technological mediation, the epistemic transformations it engenders, and the ethical recalibrations it demands. The conceptual frameworks explored here are but glimpses into a much vaster intellectual collaboration between the two fields.
References
Fahnestock, J. (2013). Promoting the discipline: Rhetorical studies of science, technology, and medicine. Poroi, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1151
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc19918941
Ihde, D. (2015). Preface: Positioning postphenomenology. In R. Rosenberger & P.-P. Verbeek (Eds.), Postphenomenology and the philosophy of technology (pp. vii–xvi). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07836-3
Kudina, O. (2024). Moral hermeneutics and technology: Making moral sense through human-technology-world relations. Lexington Books.
Lynch, J., & Kinsella, W. J. (2013). The rhetoric of technology as a rhetorical technology. Poroi, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1150
Miller, C. R. (1994). Opportunity, opportunism, and progress: Kairos in the rhetoric of technology. Argumentation, 8(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710705
Miller, C. R. (2009). Technology as a form of consciousness: A study of contemporary ethos. Communication Studies, 29(4), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510977809367983
Pitt, J. C. (2011). Doing philosophy of technology: Essays in a pragmatist spirit. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0172-6
Selber, S. A., & Miller, C. R. (Eds.). (2010). Rhetorics and technologies: New directions in writing and communication. University of South Carolina Press.
