










































isparchitecture.com

CALL FOR PAPERS

The Human in Architecture and Philosophy: Towards an Architectural Anthropology
20 July – 23 July 2015
Bamberg, Germany

Human beings normally live in buildings – structures built specifically for 
this function. This raises interesting questions. Why do we build dwellings 
(such as the ones we do)? And for whom do architects build houses? These 
questions view the same phenomenon from two different perspectives: 
architecture can tell us something about the human condition (in general or 
in a particular culture) and we can derive insights about architecture from our 
understanding of  human beings.

This topic is inspired by two observations and two related questions:
1) Many architects, contemporary and historical, claim to focus on 

the needs of  human beings. The resulting architecture, however, often 
does not meet the needs and desires of  the people who live there. For 
whom should architecture actually build?

2) Architecture, traditionally, has played a negligible role in our 
philosophical understanding of  human beings (as also for our 
sociological, psychological, and other anthropological analyses). 
Although it has always been generally acknowledged that human beings 
need built dwelling places, more careful analysis of  this need is surely 
necessary. What does it say about human beings that they depend upon 
the buildings they construct for their own habitation?

These observations point to a deficit both in philosophical analysis and in 
the practical application of  philosophy of  architecture. A more systematic 
analysis of  both areas could contribute to a better understanding of  human 
beings and to future architectural endeavour better satisfying the needs and 
wishes of  human beings.



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

90

CA
LL

 F
OR

 P
A

PE
R

S

The 3rd International Society for the Philosophy of  Architecture 
International Conference seeks to answers these questions (and to 
pose some new ones) by bringing together architecture and philosophy 
with a variety of  other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, civil 
engineering, design, law, and psychology.

Philosophers are far from having reached a consensus about the 
question as to what human beings are. Kant thought this the philosophical 
question par excellence and that upon which all other questions hang. 
Philosophers do not even agree on how to put this question. Are questions 
about human beings not already presupposing an outdated essentialism? 
Whatever one’s metaphysical position might be, it does seem that this 
obstinate philosophical-anthropological question remains. Even rejecting 
the question is, in a way, to acknowledge that it is a philosophical problem.

Human beings normally spend a significant proportion of  their lives 
in buildings. Architecture, and the built environment in a wider sense, is 
therefore of  great importance in any adequate philosophical anthropology.

When we look at the history of  architecture, we find very different (and 
often fascinating) answers to Kant’s question; answers that are implicitly 
given by the way in which architects and non-architects build or have built. 
They present an ‘architectural anthropology’ often containing insights 
beyond philosophy.

It is also remarkable how dramatically much architecture often fails 
to provide an adequate architectural anthropology. Very basic needs and 
desires of  inhabitants have not always been satisfied. Some architects and 
builders seem to ignore what human beings are really like.

Although architects are generally aware of  this challenge, and many 
claim to pay much attention to the needs of  the human being, there are 
hardly any practical systematic endeavors aimed at finding out what these 
human needs are. Most architects operate with a rather vague anthropology 
and few have attempted to articulate their position within their own 
writings. To overcome the problem of  unsubstantiated, and possibly 
incorrect, assumptions about human needs, and in order that architecture 
might relate the better to the human being, we need a developed and 
theoretically self-aware architectural anthropology.

That there has been little in the way of  cross-disciplinary encounter 
between philosophy and architecture is part of  the problem. Such encounter 
would contribute to architecture and urban planning better adapted to 
human beings and would also deepen our understanding of  ourselves as 
beings who build. The built environment is of  great importance for the 
well-being both of  the individual and of  society.

This conference addresses the challenge of  this encounter in seeking a 



91

isparchitecture.com

mutual answer, or at least approach, to the questions of  for whom we build 
and what it is we should be building.
Prospects

We aim to attract architects and philosophers. It is envisaged that 
architecture be approached through the means, methods, and models of  
analytical (Western) philosophy with a particular focus on (philosophical) 
anthropology. Scholars from across the humanities and social sciences 
(including, but not limited to, sociology, psychology, anthropology, civil 
engineering, theology, art history, and design) who are interested in the topic 
are also welcome.

Possible topics which papers might address:
I. Implicit and explicit architectural anthropologies:

•  What are the implicit or explicit assumptions about the human being 
inherent in buildings or architectural styles? (eg: van Eyck’s Orphanage, 
Koolhaas CCTV-Tower, Zumthors thermal bath, etc.)

• Comparison of  the architectural anthropology of  different buildings, 
styles, and cultures

• What are, or were, the range of  expectations (needs and desires) of  
human beings with regard to architecture: synchronically through 
history and diachronically in different cultural settings?

• Can philosophy assist in the development of  a better architectural 
anthropology?

• Would architects build differently if  they changed their assumptions 
about what humans are?

• The effect of  digital architecture on implicit anthropology.

II. Cultural differences and their anthropological relevance:
• The architectural anthropology of  cultures without dwellings (such as 

nomadic societies)
• Architectural anthropology in art, literature, and film (for example, 

the architecture of  different species in The Lord of  the Rings)



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

92

CA
LL

 F
OR

 P
A

PE
R

S

III. Classic texts revisited:
• What assumptions about the human being can be found in 

the classic texts on architecture (for example Alberti, Semper, 
Koolhaas, etc.)?

• What have philosophers of  anthropology written about 
architecture?

• Building and planning regulations and their implicit assumptions 
about humans.

IV. Architecture as a source of philosophical knowledge of human beings:
• Do architects know anything about human beings which philosophy 

should take more seriously?
• Can philosophy find new insights into the human condition 

through buildings (both internationally notable and otherwise)?
• What does the fact that human beings have to live with and within 

architecture mean for them?
• Can building be regarded as a primary activity of  human beings?
• Evolutionary perspectives on architecture and its interdependence 

on human beings.

V. Ideology and architecture:
• Politics and architecture (e.g. the MoMa exhibition ‘small scale – 

big change’ presented ‘New Architectures of  Social Engagement’. 
What about ‘human scale – big change?’) (e.g. implicit racism or 
discrimination in architecture).

• Architecture creating new types of  human being (e.g. Bauhaus and 
the ‘new human being’ (der neue Mensch)).

• Would architects build differently if  they changed their assumptions 
about the human being?

Submission
The 2016 conference of  the International Society for the Philosophy 

of  Architecture invites papers which probe these questions, re-draw the 
assumptions behind them or ask new ones. It welcomes architects and 
philosophers willing to scrutinize extant (inter)disciplinary boundaries 
and consensus on these questions and issues. The conference celebrates 



93

isparchitecture.com

attempts to operate at the intersection of  both disciplines, and promotes 
work ready to give philosophical anthropology and concrete architect(ure)s 
serious consideration alike.

Authors are invited to submit a 250-300 word abstract by Monday 
February 1, 2016. Please submit your abstract to isparchitecture@gmail.com. 
The abstract should be prepared for blind review and formatted as a RTF 
file. Please also provide a short CV. Submissions should be in English, and 
presentations will be held in English. A selection of  papers will be published 
in Architecture Philosophy.

Date and Location
• 9am Wednesday 20 July to 9pm Friday 22 July + day trip on Saturday 

23 July
• City of  Bamberg, Bavaria, Germany is a world-heritage site located 

near to Nuremberg and home to the University of  Bamberg and the 
Villa Concordia Künstlerhaus.

Timetable
Monday 1 February: deadline for abstracts
Thursday 31 March: notice of  acceptance
May: circulation of  conference program

Organising Committee
Professor Christian Illies
Philosopher, University of  Bamberg
christian.illies@uni-bamberg.de

Dr. Martin Düchs
Architect and Philosopher, University of  Bamberg
martin.duechs@uni-bamberg.de



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

94

CA
LL

 F
OR

 P
A

PE
R

S



95

isparchitecture.com

How can 
architecture be 

both immortalized 
and ordinary?

“
”

Wittgenstein famously argues against 
metaphysical claims, or those explanations he 
describes as having gone beyond both the limits 
of  language and of  our ability to comprehend. 
The boundaries of  architecture’s language, typically 
set by our historians, theorists, and practitioners, 
would by extension also teeter into the non-sensical 
on crossing the threshold of  comprehension. 
Given the possibility of  non-sense in architecture 
discourse, this call for papers asks that architecture’s 
language be scrutinized according to the loosely 
analytic method of  later Wittgenstein. For many 
lay person, perhaps even lay architect, would claim 
there is discourse that is either setting new limits to 
our language surrounding building or falling into 
non-sense. Perhaps there is value in delineating 
what the boundaries of  sense in architecture are?

The position against metaphysics, often referred 
to in the standard reading as the anti-metaphysical 
critique, suggests that Wittgenstein would reject all 
of  architecture theory. Yet, a sweeping rejection 
seems too drastic, even for Wittgenstein. Given 
that theoretical work has successfully resonated 
with us, its audience, evidenced by the fact that 
we in turn shape building informed by theoretical 
work, not all theoretical reflection would appear to 
be meaningless. On closer reading, it is clear that 
Wittgenstein suggests that some forms of  reflection 
do fall outside of  his metaphysical critique, 
suggesting further still that only some forms of  
theory are contested by his non-sense claim.

Compounding the matter within the case of  
architecture, Wittgenstein defines architecture in 
such a manner as to suggest that it is defined beyond 
its physical reality, or metaphysically. He states, 



AP . vol 2 . No 1 . 2016

96

CA
LL

 F
OR

 P
A

PE
R

S

“architecture immortalizes and glorifies.” Precisely what is immortalized 
and glorified is necessarily an idea about a thing, or a notion attributed to 
the building, as opposed to a physical characteristic embodied within it.

Assuming there is no contradiction with Wittgenstein’s anti-metaphysical 
critique and architecture theory broadly speaking, the paradox of  
Wittgenstein’s writing and his definition of  architecture becomes clear. 
His anti-metaphysical critique values the immediacy of  the present and 
the tangibility of  what is physically verifiable, yet he defines architecture as 
immortalizing and glorifying. How can we understand architecture as both 
ordinary and immortal? How can architecture maintain its understandings 
and narratives with the everyday while simultaneously reaching a status of  
immortality and glorification?

The two-day symposium set at the Wittgenstein House in Vienna looks 
to bring to architects and designers’ attention the potential significance 
of  Wittgenstein’s method of  investigation to their work, in terms of  both 
understanding architecture and excelling at its practice. The possibilities 
for explanation are broad and interdisciplinary, and as such, participants 
are asked only to narrow their focus to the building, the city, or tectonic 
exercises. Participants are also asked not to limit their discussion to either 
aesthetics or to ethics, as for Wittgenstein, “aesthetics and ethics are one 
and the same.”

Organized by Dr. Carolyn A. Fahey. For any questions regarding the 
call for papers, event, or post-event publication, please email the organizer 
at carfahey[at]gmail.com.

Abstracts are due by 01 April 2016 to isparchitecture[at]gmail.com. 
Abstracts should be no less than 200 words and no more than 500 words. 

Authors of  accepted abstract submissions will be notified by 01 May 
2015 for participation in the symposium. Symposium participants are then 
invited to submit full papers for a special issue of  Architecture Philosophy. 
Full paper submissions will be double-blind peer reviewed and, if  accepted, 
published in the special issue.


