SWARM OF FILES (pdf)

1) MORE MONIST IDEALISM

Object-oriented philosopher Graham Harman judges the 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 He posits a shadowy “withdrawn” realm of real objects and qualities in order to explain the discrepancies between his naive abstract model of knowledge as “access” and the concrete reality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.

2) IS ONTOLOGY MAKING US STUPID?

In this paper I consider the ontologies of Louis Althusser, Graham Harman, and Paul Feyerabend. I begin by “deconstructing” the title and explaining that Feyerabend does not usually use the noun “ontology”, although he sometimes calls his position “ontological” realism. He prefers to talk about this position as indifferently a “general methodology” or a “general cosmology”, and he seems to be be hostile to the very enterprise of ontology, conceived of as “school philosophy”. I then go on to sketch out a different type of ontology than the classical notion rejected by Feyerabend. I call this a “diachronic ontology”, and argue that it is the sort of ontology that Feyerabend would have accepted. A diachronic ontology is very different from ontology as ordinarily conceived, which one could call by contrast a synchronic ontology, an ontology having no room for the dialogue with Being, but that simply presupposes that Being is already and always there without our contribution. To illustrate this concept of synchronic ontology, I discuss the very similar “ontologies” (in fact onto-epistemologies) of Louis Althusser and of Graham Harman as typical exemplars of synchronic ontology. During this discussion I give a close reading of Harman’s recent book THE THIRD TABLE. Harman’s OOP and Althusserianism share the same ontology of real objects and ideological or “sensual” objects, the same critique of the problematic of the subject (now called “correlationism”) and the same utterly inadequate epistemology, incapable of explaining scientific progress. I then discuss Feyerabend’s ideas in his later philosophy, as showing a different way for ontology, that of a diachronic ontology, in which there is no stable framework and no fixed path. I conclude with a discussion of Andrew Pickering’s essay NEW ONTOLOGIES, which makes a similar distinction to mine, expressing it in the imagistic terms of a De Kooningian (diachronic) versus a Mondrianesque (synchronic) approach.

3 Responses to SWARM OF FILES (pdf)

  1. landzek says:

    Hi Terrence. . In case you might be wondering: I have not sent your copy yet. I have published the print and ebooks versions, but I really these were to get to understand the process of self publishing. As it turns out, I will be sending you the 2nd edition, or at least the revised 1st edition (what would it be ??). There are many formatting issues, slightly incomplete or nearly completed thoughts and type-o’s in the 1st edition. So I am in process of ironing these issues out, and probably will be done in a week or so. So Id say expect a copy arriving in about a month. Im just telling you this in case you were wondering if I was expecting you to buy it.

    I hope you will be brutal and honest in you appraisal and opinion of it. :))
    Thx.

    Like

    • terenceblake says:

      OK thank you. I do not know if I will have anything useful to say, but I will do my best.

      Like

      • landzek says:

        You have a great ability to understand significant features of arguments and their faults and are able to find syntheses among many authors, that seems to me the authors themselves dont see. I do not doubt that you will have at least one thing to say about my essay that i will be grateful for.

        Thank u for your humility though.

        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