“WITHDRAWAL” SYMPTOM: on the conceptual pathology of OOO

Graham Harman introduced the pathological notion of withdrawal to reconfine speculative realism (without the scare-quotes or capital letters) inside the monist prison, arguing that this imprisonment was necessary to permit us to escape the constructivist nightmare. “Withdrawal”, whether strong (as in Harman’s invisible, untouchable, unknowable objects) or weak (as in Bryant’s renaturalisation of it into an incoherent physicalist notion of partial causality), replunges us into the problematic of access that structuralism (Althusserian and Popperian) had for a time dismantled, freeing speculation from the subject/object aporia.

The critique of “correlationism” (Meillassoux), of “philosophies of access” (Harman), or of “anthropocentrism” (Bryant) serves to falsify the history of philosophy by painting the subject/object problematic all over the very movements that overcame it. Only in this way could their own regressive contributions be presented as new, i.e. on a fake background that eliminated from view all their more sophisticated rivals, that had preceded them and already denounced  and refuted their elucubrations (only under other names).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s