Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In his youth, Canguilhem regarded the problem of unity as an significant philosophical issue. One aspect of this problem was the relationship between technique and science. Contrary to Comte’s idea of achieving unity of human activities by reducing all to one of them, Canguilhem proposed constituting unity through the harmony of different activities, based on a hierarchy among them. This raises the question of the basis for establishing such a hierarchy. Canguilhem addresses this by mentioning the concept of life. By considering science and technology from the perspective of life, the priority of technique over science becomes apparent. Technical activity is rooted directly in life as a creative impulse, while science appears as a reflection on failure of actions already undertaken. In this sense, technique takes precedence over science. But this anteriority does not imply a constant superiority. Science and technique alternate their roles as sources and handlers of problems. This brings up another question: what is the reference point for determining the superiority of one over the other? Canguilhem finds the answer in the scientific aspect of medicine. Since medicine emerges from life’s instinctive impulse to bridge the gap between “what is” and “what is wished”, it is a technique from the basis. In navigating this impulse, humanity positions medicine as a technique at the intersection of sciences. Though guided by prudence, which counters the technical impulse, it does not oppose the life project of becoming healthy. Medicine, therefore, represents the human prolongation of life’s spontaneous effort. To treat a sick individual, technique and science converge. Herein lies the answer to the problem Canguilhem has pursued since his youth. Unity, as dynamic harmony between diverse functions, logic and activities—irreducible to any single one of them—can be achieved when the concrete individual is placed at the center of thought.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2024 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: