I. Preliminaries
1. Introduction
Greek thought captures vividly the essence of human thinking in the myth of creation of man by two brothers:
Prometheus and Epimetheus (Pausanias 10.4.4). Prometheus is one who offers a description or explanation
regarding a state of affairs beforehand. His name means “he-who-knows-before”. Under the light of
a priori knowledge Prometheus is able to estimate the consequences and foresee the course of an action-plan
(prognosis). His brother Epimetheus, is quite opposite in nature and habit of thought. Epimetheus can offer a
description or explanation only after the experience. His name means “he-who-knows-after”. He is
unable to determine the principles of action beforehand.
The myth presents Prometheus challenging Zeus and championing the cause of man. The Western tradition
promptly pronounces him a hero, the prototypical scientist, or engineer. Vitruvius (De Architectura IX) characterizes
Pythagoras as a great “Prometheus”, with brilliant contributions to the art of building and engineering. Epimetheus
on the other hand is not thought to be very intelligent. He is characterized as sluggish or too impulsive, acting first
and only later grasping, by reflection, the significance of what he had done. Prometheus thinks ahead and explains
a priori, while Epimetheus perceives first and explains a posteriori. It is here that we should seek the difference
between the two brothers whose attitude with regard to the view of the world has so strong an influence on us.
Since then, a great chasm continues to exist between those who relate everything to a universal pre-organizing
principle in terms of which all that they do obtains significance, and those who pursue many ends, often unrelated
and contradictory.
In the light of the myth of Prometheus and Epimetheus, I claim that design does not involve prognosis
but involves diagnosis. It is a process of pinpointing, or spotting problems and their associations out of a mesh of
muddled and intertwined conditions. This study suggests that a universal pre-organizing principle does not exist in
design. But architects and practitioners base their actions on their own imperfect concepts, hypotheses, and
techniques, and proceed to the construction of self-consistent design systems.
The outcome of this process is the formation of an order, one part of which, or certain conditions of which, are
objective and another is subjective. To achieve that, a designer, just like a craftsman depends on a personal
technique that has proved effective in the past. Overall, a designer starts out with contradictory hopes: One must
act, and simultaneously persist in an attitude, in order to give the elements of one’s thought the time to create
affinities, and to construct. The hypotheses and restrictions that one imposes on oneself reveal by their
randomness that they are only a small part of what one is capable to imagine. New kinds of structure can emerge
from new hypotheses. But, it is also by the technique of construction, or the “craftsmanship” that one achieves
original goals, and not just by surrender to impulse.
The scope of this study develops around the question how designs are processed when people design new
artifacts. In this section the terms design problem, design concept, and synthesis are introduced in the way that
are put into use in the rest of the thesis. |
