MORE MONIST IDEALISM: On OOO as failed pluralism and counterfeit realism

Summary: Object-oriented philosopher Graham Harman judges the natural sciences, the humanities, and common sense in terms of the crude philosophical criteria of another age and finds them lacking in knowledge of reality.

He posits a shadowy “withdrawn” realm of real objects and qualities in order to explain the discrepancies between his naive abstract model of knowledge as “access” and the concrete reality of the sciences. Unfortunately, nothing can be said about this realm of real objects, which are by definition ineffable, forever inaccessible behind the veil of withdrawal.

Later works by Harman such as THE QUADRUPLE OBJECT, THE THIRD TABLE and BELLS AND WHISTLES, like the whole of his philosophy, are the record of his noticing the discrepancies between his model and what it is supposed to be modeling, but refusing to revise the model.

Harman’s solution, object-oriented philosophy, is a dead-end, the timid, nostalgic, and
fundamentally misleading propounding of an antiquated epistemology under the cover of a “new” ontology.

Comment: MORE MONIST IDEALISM (here) is my most complete treatment of OOO to date. It would take only a little work to turn it into a publishable monograph, and this is what I intend to do.

Note: The subtitle (“Essay review of Graham Harman’s BELLS AND WHISTLES”) is slightly misleading, as the article is a review of Harman’s philosophy as a whole.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to MORE MONIST IDEALISM: On OOO as failed pluralism and counterfeit realism

  1. Anonymous says:

    I wonder whether you can start the paper with the sections, “OOO: A SUBJECT WITH A NOT SO GREAT PAST” and “ON DISAPPOINTMENT IN PHILOSOPHY: the case of OOO” or some introductory remark. One of the things I find fascinating about your critique of OOO is not that I find anything so exceptional about OOO itself but your critique addresses how certain philosophical lure, which is supposed to be based on reason and reflexivity, can be dangerous – especially if thinkers hold onto pet notions without trying to adapt to new thoughts and situations. Reading some of your more personal experience with philosophy and recently, OOO, helped me to understand your critique better.

    Liked by 1 person

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