« Hyper-philosophy » is what Harman is doing, in Baudrillardian terms, but this also characterises the productions of the other speculative realists. Speculative realism is hyper-realism in its vacuous insistence on a « return » to the real that noone ever left.
OOP is hyper-philosophy, a philosophy that is more « real » than real philosophy, imitating its appearance and gestures while abandoning all engagement other than verbal with its potential interlocutors. This is what I have described as OOP’s de-noetising « concept-blindness ».
Similarly, at the level of content Harman is obsessed with talking about a purported real whose disappearance his own philosophy enshrines and purveys in its basic principles. For OOP all objects of sensible and intellectual encounter are unreal, mere sensual phantasms or simulacra. However, Harman’s posited real objects are hyper-real simulations, bearing the label « real » but without any ontological substrate except a brute posit composed out of empty signifiers.
I wonder: Looking ina mirror, can the reflection express the object that is its ’cause’? How does the object speak if its reflection? Or vice versa? Im not sure there is a ‘positive’ that can express some truth in polemical assertion. It appears to me the situation itself behaves as a critique of such positional method. That this might be more Harmans error that his critiques though.
Speaking of Baudrillard, what kind of position does death have in Harman’s philosophy?