In Graham Harman’s OOO real objects are invisible, inaudible, intangible, unimaginable, unknowable and indescribable. There is no method of access to them or way of studying them, no sensible intuition, so Harman relies on his own intellectual intuition. OOO is a dead-end, and Zizek is right to compare it to Swedenborgian metaphysics.
Zizek’s critique of OOO is general enough to include both Levi Bryant’s and Graham Harman’s versions:
… but with the caveat: his philosophy works for what is Rio in the sense that I use the idea of what is real: regular people living their lives can apply his philosophy in a very real way, which is to say that they can draw intuition from what is otherwise withdrawn. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that he’s working now for an architectural school, and that artists seem to love 000.
This is been my critique from the very beginning that he is drawing from a transcendental clause, but insomuch as he is saying that objects withdraw from all mediation , he is in I kind of double bad faith because he is talking about reality, and indeed there for draws no punches because that’s exactly what he’s dealing with: reality. He doesn’t have to make any apologies for his real Fery except so far as he sees reality as the total Omni present situation. Hey there bye is involved in a real negotiation of his identity which is otherwise known ,so far as a success in one’s intuitive capacity or ability, Faith in the transcendental clause.
But again it doesn’t matter whether or not he says it’s God or whether it’s a withdrawn object or whether it’s intuition or whether he’s an atheist or anything like that because he’s involved in real negotiations. The double bad faith is in so much as he says that objects withdraw, because indeed he’s talking about the privileged subject by which reality takes place. So every route every meaning that he is putting forth in his philosophy is firmly founded in a real negotiation, The same negotiation that allows for every human being on the planet to be involved with it, and equivocal situation of human being, and ontology of equivocal universalobjects.
So on one hand while I agree with your analysis and concur with its judgment, I likewise have to say that he’s being nothing but honest, while at the same time being deceptive insomuch as he merely sets inside the argument of the phenomenological subject. Innoway this is what I mean by we have to have agreement. Once we understand the phenomenological reduction, once we see that Hagel and Fitch and Lessing and Kierkegaard and Vic and stein and all these other philosophers of ontology I really only describing various Clauzelle formations of the same basic being that is human, then we are freed up to consider other philosophical options.
In fact I would say that once we agree on this we have opened a non-philosophical situation; and hence my next book will really take this situation as a philosophical object by which to describe what is occurring; in particular Harmon because of his real ontology becomes the perfect example the perfect subject the perfect philosophical object by which we can begin to describe what the human being does.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Ping : OOO And Zizek through Blake – Constructive Undoing
see the last few minutes of this video where he insists (pace Rorty) that there are essences which he takes to be the objects of Philosophical speculations: