Archives mensuelles : mai 2014

Graham Harman’s OOO is the denial of the concrete world and of its abundance in favour of an abstract world of withdrawn objects. And on academia .edu:

Initialement publié sur Object-Oriented Philosophy :
Someone sent me THIS RECORDING of Žižek’s recent lecture at Birkbeck, in which Jane Bennett and I are described as new materialists. I love Žižek, but that isn’t very precise on his part. Bennett is a materialist, and…

For Feyerabend there is no such thing as the “scientific image”, and common sense (or so-called “folklore”) is for him often much richer than the pale abstractions one tries to replace it with on the basis of a handful of … Lire la suite →

I was enrolled in Philosophy at Sydney University from 1972 to 1981, so I participated in the events that led to the formation of the Department of General Philosophy in 1974, where I taught as a tutor for 5 years … Lire la suite →

Harman’s OOO is not just anti-humanist, in its de-centering of ontology away from the primacy of the human, but misanthropic. Human beings, instances of the only concept of humanity that we know, belong, according to this system, to the sensual … Lire la suite →

After a recent blog post, Steve Fuller stands accused of obscurantist confusionism, of having confused and conflated various positions in the speculative realist rainbow. However Fuller does not discuss Speculative Realism, but OOO and dark ecology. Unfortunately he barely mentions … Lire la suite →

Initialement publié sur Off-Kilter :
Are only « subjects » « minds » hypostatizied? Or are ‘bodies’ and ‘matter’ just as much hypostatizations? There is a growing irritation in me while re/reading and trying to come to grips with the varying reductionist materialisms out there.…

I cannot agree with the widespread impression that object-oriented ontology provides the metaphysics that is lacking to actor-network theory. On the contrary, I think that Latour’s ANT is totally incosistent with Harman’s OOO. Bruno Latour can be seen as a … Lire la suite →

I have done quite a lot of negative critique of Latour’s « AN INQUIRY INTO MODES OF EXISTENCE on my blog, and the previous post on my « ambivalence » towards Latour’s AIME system is one-sided in that I give a concise summary … Lire la suite →

Comment on a post published on Installing (Social) Order: I still feel very ambivalent about the book. When I first read it I had in the back of my mind the various pluralists that he does not cite very favorable … Lire la suite →