I have done enough critical analysis of Harman’s OOP (for example: PLURALIST THOUGHTS ON GRAHAM HARMAN’S MONIST IDEALISM) to permit myself to indicate 2 points that I find positive in his philosophy
1) Anti-scientism: Harman assigns only a regional validity to scientific truths and denies the pretention of scientists to cognitive hegemony
2) Anti-literalism: Harman defends the use of « allusive » language and style against the primacy of referential language and literal understanding
No argumentative strategy can succeed in its critique of Harman if it does not acknowledge the positive nature of these two hypotheses and their ensuing suggestions.
Wolfendale, for example, is scientistic and literalistic, and despite scoring many points against Harman’s system he cannot provide a convincing alternative.
Wolfendale’s critique is quite often not original, and his book assembles in one place many criticisms that have been made by others of Harman’s system from the beginning up to now. He tries to give them sense and weight by incorporating these arguments in his own less than satisfactory unified framework.