A Study on the Philosophy of Information Science from the Dimension of Culture ^†

Abstract

Based on the shift in the trend of Philosophy of science, from “fact” study to “value” study, in the second half of the last century, and the subsequent wave of “philosophy of culture”, the study on the Philosophy of Information science from a cultural dimension is more in line with the taste of Philosophy, science and culture in this era. At the same time, it is also an urgent requirement in the age of information. Therefore, the study of this paper will theoretically help to promote the formation of a unified paradigm of Philosophical Investigations on Information science.

1. Introduction

Lyotard believed that, in the postmodern society where Information science and technology drives production and leads lifestyle, knowledge no longer remains “neutral in value” but has to be married with politics.

“On Lyotard’s account, the computer age has transformed knowledge into information, that is, coded messages within a system of transmission and communication. Analysis of this knowledge calls for a pragmatics of communication insofar as the phrasing of messages, their transmission and reception, must follow rules in order to be accepted by those who judge them. However, as Lyotard points out, the position of judge or legislator is also a position within a language game, and this raises the question of legitimation. As he insists, ‘there is a strict interlinkage between the kind of language called science and the kind called ethics and politics’, and this interlinkage constitutes the cultural perspective of the West. Science is therefore tightly interwoven with government and administration, especially in the information age, where enormous amounts of capital and large installations are needed for research.” [1].

Science, especially Information science, has a dimension of “value” in our era. This makes it necessary for us to reflect on Information science from the perspective of “culture”. To be specific, the dimension of “culture” refers to the Philosophical Investigations on Information science from the perspective of the Philosophy of culture. Why choose to start from the Philosophy of culture rather than different aspects under other “value” dimensions, such as politics, morality, aesthetics and religion? Not only because the Philosophy of culture comprehensively considers these different dimensions but also for the following two reasons.

2. The Obvious Characteristics of Postmodernism in Philosophy of Culture

It is generally believed that the study of the Philosophy of culture can be traced back to Neo-Kantianism. Wilhelm Dilthiey initiated a philosophical turn from rational criticism to cultural criticism. On the basis of distinguishing the “fact” world and the “value” world, the Freiburg School classified value research as a philosophical task, and it is Ernst Cassiel who clearly sets the banner of the “Philosophy of culture”. In addition, the Philosophy of culture is also an important perspective in phenomenological research. It is in the aftermath of the Neo-Kantianism and phenomenology movement that the study of the Philosophy of culture has become an important banner of the postmodern Philosophy movement. It is also in the tide of the “value” turn of Continental Philosophy that the British and American Philosophy of science tried to find a way out in “value”. Therefore, reflection on Information science from the perspective of culture can fully demonstrate the philosophical demands in the postmodern era. The characteristics of Postmodernism displayed by the Philosophy of culture can be analyzed as follows.

2.1. From the Perspective of “Lebenswelt”

Different from Natural Philosophy starting from the objective nature, the Philosophy of consciousness starting from the subjective world of consciousness and religious Philosophy starting from the spiritual world linked by the subjective and objective, the Philosophy of culture requires starting from the junction of the subjective and objective material, consciousness and spiritual worlds—lebenswelt. Junqing Yi discussed this feature as follows:

“Philosophy of culture will enable philosophical rationality to truly ‘return to its hometown’, that is, return to the lebenswelt. In its own spiritual homeland, philosophical rationality will maintain its universal and theoretical character without being far away from life and reality; philosophical rationality, as the internal critical spirit and self-consciousness of the lebenswelt, will examine the political, economic, scientific and technological, moral and other aspects of the lebenswelt and human society without dissolving itself in specific empirical sciences. Obviously, philosophy of culture will have a positive impact on both the development of philosophical rationality itself and the evolution of human society.” [2] (p. 80).

2.2. Using Social Practice as a Research Platform

The lebenswelt occurs and exists in social practice, and “society” and “practice” are interdependent, both of which exist in the subject of a “human”. Therefore, social practice is the collective practice of human beings, and culture is the spiritual effect of such collective practice. The study of the Philosophy of culture must be based on the process of social practice. In other words, the process of social practice shapes culture, and reflection on the process of social practice forms the Philosophy of culture. This attention to the interaction between people, practice and society can be regarded as the essential characteristic of the Philosophy of culture that distinguishes it from previous philosophies.

Moreover, its emphasis on the practical role of Philosophy is often used to link it with Karl Marx’s Philosophy of practice. For example, Chengyi Tian and Nanming Li argue the following:

“This characteristic of Philosophy of culture reflects Marx’s idea of eliminating philosophy. The nature of philosophy is criticism. It comes from the clarification of real life and is the self-consciousness of the Zeitgeist. At the same time, it returns to reality and becomes the actual force to regulate reality. Therefore, the future development of philosophy must be a practical philosophy of culture.” [3] (p. 3).

2.3. Taking Value Judgment as the Research Goal

Compared to fact judgment being a characteristic of knowledge, all the processes of seeking knowledge are the pursuit of truth and the rejection of fallacy. Value judgment is the feature of culture, and all cultural behaviors are judgments of good or bad, beauty or ugliness, merit or drawbacks, gains or losses, right or wrong, desirableness or undesirableness and worthwhileness or unworthiness of a certain social phenomenon. Therefore, the Philosophy of culture is a reflective study of this cultural behavior and process marked by “value judgment”. A structural analysis of the Philosophy of culture can better reflect its value research objectives. Liqun Ding divides the research of the Philosophy of culture into three levels: “cultural value research of philosophy, cultural metaphysics research and cultural criticism”. He also believes that these three levels should be internally unified, and the rupture of the three levels will cause the connotation crisis of the Philosophy of culture. This internal unity is reflected in the following words:

“The study of cultural value of philosophy has established the rationality for philosophical investigations on culture, making the study of cultural metaphysics possible; The study of cultural metaphysics lays a theoretical foundation for cultural criticism, providing meta values and cultural ideals; Cultural criticism strives to promote all of this into cultural practice.” [4] (p. 17).

2.4. Using the Method of Transdisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Research

The highly comprehensive nature of cultural phenomena requires us to adopt diverse methods in our research. Such diverse methods have been first highlighted in scientific research since the 20th century, which are transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary research methods. Moreover, in the study of the Philosophy of culture, the range of “trans” and “inter” includes philosophical research methods as well. Guangwen Zou made a detailed analysis of this “trans” and “inter”, and he believed that the development of the Philosophy of culture in the 20th century gradually made it the mainstream of modern philosophical investigations. And in line with the diverse characteristics of scientific research in the 20th century, this means the following:

“Philosophy of culture also presents a diverse pattern in research methods. Not only philosophy (such as phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Analytic philosophy) provides new research methods for the construction of Philosophy of culture, but also many neighboring disciplines (such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, etc.) and many emerging disciplines (such as systems theory, information theory, communication studies) also have been involved in philosophy of culture. The rise of Philosophy of culture in the contemporary era has objectively brought about the transformation of the central issues of philosophy, the diversification of philosophical investigations methods and the enrichment of philosophically spiritual pursuit. It can be predicted that philosophy of culture will pay attention to the fate of human existence and the fate of philosophy with a broader cultural vision, the theoretical character of facing the reality of life, and the persistent spirit of humanism in its future development.” [5] (p. 46).

Based on the characteristics of postmodernity of the Philosophy of culture analyzed above, it naturally fits in with the postmodern society labeled with “information”. This correspondence provides a theoretical logical possibility for the study of Information science Philosophy from the perspective of the Philosophy of culture.

3. Philosophy of Culture Can More Profoundly Reveal the Essence of Information Science

Information science is different from previous sciences. It is generally shown as a cultural phenomenon of “Anthropocentrism”. If natural science is opposite to human beings, then Information science is united with human beings, specifically the unity with human thinking, consciousness and even emotion. Different from natural sciences, the laws of Information science mainly apply to human society. Therefore, it can be said that Information science itself is the manifestation of a cultural form itself. Before the emergence of Information science, human culture was constructed by information. After the emergence of Information science, the human cultural form was manifested by information.

Upon a careful analysis, we will find that information is the carrier of culture, which means that the information carrying and disseminating culture is in languages, books, behaviors, paintings, music and beliefs. Therefore, information itself cannot be separated from culture, and without an information carrier, culture cannot be presented. Since the early 20th century, pioneering work in mathematics and logic has made quantitative research on information possible. According to the history of science, the formation of a scientific discipline is closely related to the process of mathematical quantitative research. For example, calculus and celestial mechanics, probability theory and statistical mechanics, Maxwell’s equations and electrodynamics, Riemannian geometry and general relativity, group theory and quantum mechanics, etc. The formation of these scientific disciplines is all marked by the breakthrough and construction of the quantitative method of new mathematics. Therefore, with the efforts of a number of talents, such as Claude Shannon, Alan Turing, John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener and Kurt Gödel, the theoretical basis of Information science has been constructed. But another characteristic of science is experimentation. The premise of experimentation is that it can be experienced, and the objects that can be experienced are seen as the material world. Because the research object of Information science—the informational world—does not have the possibility of experience, at least not the possibility of sensory experience, Information science is classified as formal science. According to Kun Wu, information is a form of existence, but it is not real. Therefore, it can be referred to as a “virtual existence” [6]. In Luciano Floridi’s view, there is no other ‘reality’ besides information, and the reality of information is only a ‘structural reality’ [7]. All of these understandings of the essence of information imply that information is completely different from the matter and energy studied with traditional science. This completely different feature means information cannot exist without consciousness, whether it is human consciousness or “other” consciousness (if based on an animism understanding). Therefore, when we focus on “Information science”, we can basically limit the scope of research to human group consciousness. Since human culture is created by human group consciousness, then the study of Information science from the Philosophy of culture will naturally and profoundly point to its essence.