How To Think

The Need To Move Beyond Homo Faber

Maria daVenza Tillmanns argues that we need to be holistic in our approach
to solving complex problems.
In this article I would like to highlight a distinction between two essentially different orientations of thinking. One
looks from the inside out, the other from the outside in. To focus from the inside out is to start from
the individual problem, person, state, country, nation and his/her/its specific needs. To focus from the outside in is
to start from the whole and its needs: from the earth as a whole, the country as a whole, the community as a
whole, the person as a whole, the problematic situation as a whole. To start from the whole is to start from the
context in which a problem presents itself, rather than to focus strictly on the problem itself. For example, I can
focus on finding a cure to a particular cancer, or I can focus on finding a cure for the person who has a particular
form of cancer.

The orientation which focuses on the problem looks at how I can use something for a particular purpose, and so
is instrumental in nature. It is the thinking employed by Homo faber, Latin for ‘Tool Wo/Man’. Homo faber is a
concept articulated by Hannah Arendt and Max Scheler referring to humans as controlling the environment
through tools. Know-how is applied by Homo faber to the environment as one would apply a tool, in order
to control it. The contrasting orientation, that looks at how to engage the whole for the sake of solving a problem,
is the orientation of what I call Homo cognito (a term I invented) – the ‘Examining/Inquiring Wo/Man’, from the
Latin cognosco, which means ‘I inquire/examine’. In this article, I want to specify some characteristics of both
orientations, and show why it is important to move beyond the thinking of Homo faber, given its limitations.

Differences in Perspective
Homo faber I’ve said is instrumental in nature, and focuses more or less
exclusively on the use of an instrument or a tool of thought with a particular
purpose in mind. We vaccinate young children in developing countries with
the precise purposes of saving their lives and eradicating life-threatening
diseases in those countries. This can have wonderful results. However, there
are also drawbacks and limitations to this orientation, as it leaves out the
context into which we bring our knowledge of the importance of issuing
vaccinations. The community may therefore resent, fear, and even resist what
we simply see as doing good. In contrast, Homo cognito, operating from the
perspective of the whole, would focus first on the community, not the
problem. Homo cognito would work in collaboration with the community to
inquire how best to introduce something the targeted population is not familiar
Homo cognito takes his/her place in the
with. A context needs to be created so that community members can trust and universe
incorporate practices without feeling they are being imposed upon them; so
that they can understand how they will bring benefit and not harm. Homo cognito knows she will need to
collaborate with some of the community’s leaders to explain the need and urgency for this activity, for example.

Homo faber creates systems which are meant to create infrastructures for dealing with life’s various demands
and challenges. For example, Homeland Security had a system to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Only the system did not work very well. Many people were left ‘outside’ of the system, and were not helped in the
way they needed. Other help, in the form of individual people trying to supply what was urgently needed, was
turned away – to the horror of emergency aid workers, who instantly recognized the need for the practical help
offered by individuals and groups in the form of food, transportation, etc. By contrast, Homo cognito tries to
incorporate all relevant facets of the context within which a particular problem exists. So Homo cognito may
structure a system loose enough to incorporate help offered by the community within a particular situation. For
example, the Pipe Filter Project initiated by the Carter Center, designed water pipe filters in such a way that their
cost is minimal and they could easily be reproduced and used. This method was highly effective in reducing
Guinea Worm Disease in Sudan. Another example is the use of Solar Bottle Bulbs, whereby soda bottles are
filled with water and three tablespoons of chlorine bleach. These Solar Bottles refract sunlight from outdoors and
can glow with light equivalent to a 55W bulb. They light homes which were previously unlit in impoverished areas
in Brazil and the Philippines. Both these projects incorporate a knowledge of the context in order to solve an
existing problem, rather than trying to develop technology independent of knowing the context in which it is to be
used. Whereas Homo faber creates pathways or systems for repeat use, Homo cognito creates one pathway at a
time, in collaboration with those involved in a particular context. Pathways created for repeated use can easily
become rigid structures that cannot accommodate the demands of a particular situation. As a result there may be
as many people who fall victim to these systems as there are people who are actually helped by them. For a
general instance, certain capitalist structures will increase the level of local poverty instead of helping alleviate
people out of poverty.

The Right & The Best

Homo faber seeks certainty – she needs to have the ‘right’ answers to problems; whereas Homo cognito aims at
achieving the best solutions in collaboration with others in the unique context of the situation. This always leaves
open the possibility of there being even better solutions.

This is not to say that there aren’t right answers to keep bridges from crumbling, or buildings from collapsing
during an earthquake. This form of thinking is certainly not irrelevant. However it cannot be the only form of
thinking. Right answers depend on the right tools being applied; but too much can be ignored when the focus is
solely on using the technologically ‘right’ tool for the job. On the other hand, Homo cognito, freed from the need
for absolute certainty, can engage in the knowledge-making process with others. Collaborative teamwork works
out case-by-case solutions to problems too complex to be reduced to fixed problems with fixed answers.

Homo cognito also has to evaluate the information gathered and determine its reliability and relevance. With so
much information available to us these days, we generally need to know how to evaluate the knowledge (or
‘knowledge’) that is out there. We cannot depend on all the information being accurate, trusting that someone
with authority stands behind the claims made. Instead of relying on the authority of the teacher or on possibly
outdated textbook or internet sources, we ourselves have to determine the reliability of sources. We have to
become our own authority, so to speak.

Thus Homo cognito becomes the authority on her contribution to the collaborative process, and is directly
involved with deciding the relevance, importance and reliability of the information gathered. She is accountable
for how she has made her decisions, and is able to give reasons and explanations for these decisions. In this
way, instead of depending on the authority of instructor or text, Homo cognito now makes her thinking and
reasoning visible and transparent to the collaborating group.

This process encourages care-ful and thought-ful attention to one’s

thinking and decision-making, rather than simply reacting to the facts
at hand. To react is to let the facts predominate; to respondis to
let relationship predominate. For example, a tutor discovers that the
child she is assigned to work with in the fourth grade reads only at a
second grade level. This fact is a precondition for how the
tutor chooses to relate and interact with the child. However, if she lets
this fact determine the nature of her interaction with the child, her
relationship with the child is what the philosopher Martin Buber would
have called an I-It (subject-object) relationship. Alternatively, if she
establishes a relationship with this child as a human being, her
relationship is an I-Thou (subject-subject) relationship. To respond is
Moving to Homo cognito is like moving to a
to give careful and thoughtful consideration to the unique child and
the challenges she faces as a result of not being able to read at a heliocentric universe

fourth grade level. Moreover, in responding as opposed to

reacting, Homo cognito decides beforehand to consider and evaluate the unique situation she is dealing with.

Homo cognito’s thinking is reflective, contextual and relational, then. However, Homo faber’s thinking is reflex-
oriented, and narrow in that it is only instrumental in nature. It does not consider anything other than the
immediate use in the situation at hand, sometimes to the extent of blindness. To move from Homo faber to Homo
cognito is like moving from geocentric thinking to heliocentric thinking; or from thinking that sees itself – or its
community, its country – as central, to thinking that sees itself in relation to others – other people, other
communities, other countries.

Answers & Questions

Moreover, instrumental thinking does not lend itself to developing self-knowledge, for it doesn’t involve awareness
of the thinking process itself. It simply applies reason for the purpose of solving problems. To become self-
knowledgeable, we have to move beyond Homo faber towards Homo cognito, for Homo cognito inquires about
and examine even their own thinking processes, and in so doing becomes aware of thinking as a set of skills we
can learn to develop, as we learn to develop any other skill. To be a critical thinker is also be self-critical and
examine one’s own thinking and thoughts. We think to reason things through, but rarely to think through our
reasoning.

Very often, our opinions and beliefs serve as answers to questions we have in life; yet Homo cognito sets out to
question these opinions and beliefs. Homo cognito questions the very lenses through which we see and interpret
the world. Ordinarily, we may question what we see through those lenses (Homo faber); but rarely do we question
those lenses themselves (Homo cognito). As answers, opinions and beliefs tend to become fixed, and lose their
flexibility to accommodate to life’s unique situations. Thinking becomes shortsighted. We lose the ability to see
the nuances of every situation and we respond accordingly. All we can do is react to things in a limited,
instrumentalist way. However, to be able to respond to the uniqueness of a particular situation requires an
exercise of free will where one is free to respond with one’s whole being (Buber) and for which response one is
solely responsible. How I choose to respond may or may not be the ‘right’ way; but we can
learn better and worse ways to respond to a situation. We will never know whether the way we have chosen to
respond is the absolute best way, so we have to be able to act decisively in the face of not knowing.

Homo cognito accepts that there are no ultimate answers in any given situation, only better or worse
answers. Homo cognito is not searching for the ultimate answer, or Truth in science or religion; but rather is
searching for the next question to bring us closer to a deeper understanding of how the world works. The next
question comes out of relationship, which is in constant flux. No concert piece is ever played exactly the same
way twice, which is why it is art. If playing a piece of music were a mechanical, purely technical matter, the piece
would not only always sound the same, it also would not make a difference who played the piece. We would
presumably know the right way of playing the piece, and it would always have to be played that way, no matter
the pianist. But instead, different people contribute ideas and skills from their different perspectives. For this
reason, Homo cognito develops the ability to not instantly jump to the defense of her opinions and beliefs, but
rather to test them against the opinions and beliefs of others.

Cultural Transformations
We seem to have moved away from art and artful thinking. In perfecting herself, Homo faber, the ‘tool-maker’,
has made herself obsolete. When a relationship still existed between a tool-maker and his materials (wood, iron,
masonry), or his land (cattle, crops), or his family (immediate and extended), he could exercise his free will with
his whole being, in terms of how he chose to respond to the uniqueness of a particular challenge. Yet, with
technical advancement, technological skill started to replace human skill. We sacrificed relationship for profit.
There was money to be made by doing things the ‘right’ way or the only way. Free will was no longer needed.
Instead, we’ve ended up on the conveyor belt of technological processes and processed knowledge.
For this reason I believe we need to do philosophy with children now more than ever. We have increasingly taken
away their free time, their ability to make up their own games, their ability to solve their own problems, their ability
to be by themselves and figure out the world on their own terms. We need to restore their relationship with the
world around them so they can learn who they are and what matters to them. Doing philosophy with children
helps to achieve just that. It restores their relationship with their own and others’ thinking, which is important for
creating a community of inquiry and collaboration. In the process, self-knowledge is gained, and with that
character and integrity can develop. Once again, we have to embrace the uncertainty inherent in the pursuit of
knowledge, as opposed to presuming its certainty.

The importance of this cultural transformation cannot be overstated. It is a necessary step toward greater human
freedom. When we have learned not just to make and use tools, but to think for ourselves, question ourselves,
and take charge of our own lives, while becoming increasingly conscious of our dependence on each other, on
that day we will have taken the next great step forward in our evolution. On that day the age of Homo cognito will
have arrived.

© Dr Maria daVenza Tillmanns 2015

Maria daVenza Tillmanns is a former President of the American Society for Philosophy, Counseling and
Psychotherapy (ASPCP), and is currently a philosophy instructor at California College, San Diego.