Is Quentin Meillassoux a good guide to the history of philosophy? Meillassoux seems to think that Kantian and post-Kantian philosophy is under the sway of what he calls « correlationism ». The object oriented philosophers love to cite this model because it makes of them revolutionaries in the philosophical world. Parikka, along with others such as Ben Woodard (here and here) and Naxos (here), finds fault with this oversimplification of history, another unjustified unification along with the institutionalization of being (2) and the sociological imposture of group nerdification(1).
No doubt unwilling to go into a long-winded discussion of the stultifying limits of object oriented philosophy’s much abridged history of philosophy, Parikka contents himself with the mention of a striking counter-example: the new materialism (for a good discussion see here) associated with the names of Rosi Braidotti and Elizabeth Grosz. As Woodard points out in his post Post-Deleuze? , this and other intellectual phenomena (such as the fact that we have not even got to Deleuze yet) seriously complicate coarse linear chronologies (for my take see here).