HARMAN AND PARMENIDES: OOO’s Abandon of Speculation about the Real

Graham Harman’s OOO is the denial of the concrete world and of its abundance in favour of an abstract world of withdrawn objects.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: https://www.academia.edu/7211852/HARMAN_AND_PARMENIDES_OOOs_Abandon_of_Speculation_about_the_Real

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to HARMAN AND PARMENIDES: OOO’s Abandon of Speculation about the Real

  1. landzek says:

    The opening statement seems eerily similar to the small essay I’m writing now, which I will post soon. I will read the rest of your essay soon.


  2. Bill Ectric says:

    This article expresses a problem with Harman’s OOO that reminds me of my problem with Derrida’s deconstruction. I actually like Derrida’s philosophy as I understand it, and I think I understand it, but I wish it could be explained in layman’s terms. Maybe I lack the cumulative foundation of knowledge, but I want to learn more.


  3. terenceblake says:

    Your reaction is complex, which is a good sign, i.e. it is not one of either complete acceptance or complete hostility. On Harman’s ontology I have expressed myself at greater length here: https://www.academia.edu/1955628/IS_ONTOLOGY_MAKING_US_STUPID and here: https://www.academia.edu/1572436/HARMANS_THIRD_TABLE. On Derrida I have not had much to say because I was very early disappointed by his linguistic idealist acolytes. I would say that the best contemporary realist reading of Derrida is given by Bernard Stiegler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Stiegler), but that this is tough going, though well worth it. On the more general question of explaining arduous philosophy in layman’s terms, what Deleuze called an approach of “pop-philosophy”, I can only encourage you to keep on expressing yourself without fear of academic censors.


  4. landzek says:

    I have not read Anything by Harman. It appears thought from what I have heard of his ideas (I think from a reply from you before) and read here, it sounds to me, on one hand, that he has the “academic sickness” where one feels his or her ideas are really great because one has played the game well enough to collect a steady check and to get people to listen to him even though he is spouting nonsense; like you have said, that others have said such philosophy is basically irresponsible. Yet on the other hand, judging from what you present here of his ideas, It seems by the mere ‘craziness’ that he is attempting to say something significant (beyond the mere job and paycheck) that I believe I can account for. Which my coming works will most likely show at some point.

    Preliminarily, the speculative realists (Quentin Meillassoux I have read, I think thanks to your suggestion) seem to have come upon a viable avenue for divergence from traditional philosophy. But where it lacks is because they are indeed must be speculating due to the nature of the philosophical discourse they see themselves involved in, which despite what they themselves might designate, is entirely real. QM at least to me does not quite reach the absurd, but only the improbable, which can be highly offensive to those who would require a proposal of Methodological application. At least Francious Laruelle (not speculative realist but non philosophy) proposes some sort of method, though I do not agree with such ability for application; yet Laruelle likewise speaks upon the divergent path.

    Thanks for this essay.


  5. terenceblake says:

    Break the monologue, walk the divergent path, speak in your own name – these are useful maxims to guide us in our steps, to encourage us in our doubts. Sometimes we encounter the absurd (Harman), or the improbable (Meillassoux), or the non-standard (Laruelle). So much the better, it shows that we are in movement, on our way. Craziness is part of the method, but not all of it, and what we want is the “right” sort of craziness, not just some cranky private delusion. Shareable singularity – a crazy goal in itself.


  6. Pingback: LATOUR ON WHITEHEAD AND PERSISTENCE IN BEING: the opposite of Graham Harman’s claims | AGENT SWARM

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s