Much of the existing literature on conceptual engineering in the philosophy of technology has concentrated on identifying when and how concepts are disrupted under pressure, and how such disruptions can be addressed through conceptual engineering interventions. By and large, this literature has predominantly resorted to conceptual engineering as an approach to diagnose and remedy disruption. Recent work by Lundgren (2024) suggests that a shift from restorative to preventative conceptual engineering is warranted: rather than analysing disruptions post hoc, concepts can be deliberately designed to resist disruption from the outset. This paper introduces and develops the notion of conceptual resilience as the capacity of concepts to maintain continuous functional adequacy despite tensions, pressures, or other disturbances. Unlike Lundgren’s (2024) account, which frames this phenomenon in terms of conceptual stability, we argue that resilience better accommodates a broader range of modes of resistance to disruption, including those that involve adaptive transformation rather than static continuity. We further argue that conceptual resilience is not a binary property, but a capacity exhibited in degrees. Drawing from interdisciplinary literatures, we introduce two heuristic framings—Conceptual Resilience as Immutability (CRI) and Conceptual Resilience as Adaptability (CRA)—which capture contrasting yet complementary ways in which concepts preserve their functional adequacy under pressure.
