Skip to content
December 10, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Answering Object Oriented Ontology Argument/Kritic-thingy

To better understand this critique I suggest reading:
1) The shells and the original article
2) More of Terrance Blakes blog
3) About Actor Network Theory (at least on wikipedia entry here)
4) Perhaps on the case lists
5) also in this Cross-x thread on the topic. I suggest starting with this post by Aubtin.

I don’t really understand this argument, but I do have a quote from Terrance Blake.


1) OOO is an abstract monism

2) OOO is profoundly reductionist

3) The withdrawn real object is an abstraction

4) Harman’s terminolgy is equivocal

5) OOO is ontological nihilism: there are no “real objects” in Harman’s sense

6) OOO is a school philosophy

7) OOO’s real objects do not withdraw, they transcend

8) WITHDRAWAL IS VERTICAL: OOO’s ontology of real objects is not flat

9) Harman’s real object is epistemically ambiguous

10) OOO claims to know the unknowable

11) OOO is an epistemology masquerading as an ontology

11) OOO is epistemological relativism

12) For OOO real knowledge is impossible

13) OOO is idealism

14) Ontology is not primary for Harman

15) Knowledge and practice are illusory: radical change is impossible

16) OOO is conceptually incoherent and terminologically confused

17) How can a withdrawn object “de-withdraw”?

18) Discontinuities are mis-described by “withdrawal”

19) Withdrawal replaces complex distinctions with a simple pseudo-concept

20) OOO’s realm of real objects is a de-qualified and de-quantified void

Heres the link to the full article….these are just the sub-headings.

This is Terrance Blake’s quals (as listed on his about page):

I was born in Sydney, Australia, in 1954.

    I majored in philosophy at Sydney University

, where I did postgraduate work in epistemology and the philosophy of science. I admired and was working on the pluralist thought of Paul Feyerabend and James Hillman. I then discovered the work of Michel Foucault Gilles Deleuze and Jean-François Lyotard and taught myself French to be able to read their books. ANTI-OEDIPUS and RHIZOME in particular were a revelation to me. So I came to Paris in 1980 to attend their lectures, which were brilliant. After 7 years in Paris I moved South to the French Riviera (books are fine but I also need sun and warmth!) where I studied linguistics with Jean-Claude Souesme. I obtained the agrégation (option: linguistics) and am

    an English teacher in a French senior high school

. I am interested in recent French philosophy under the general theme of “pluralism, individuation, and a world of becoming”, principally: Bernard Stiegler, Gilles Deleuze, François Laruelle, Bruno Latour; but I also like Michel Onfray, Slavoj Zizek, Hubert Dreyfus, William Connolly. My favorite SF writers are Alastair Reynolds, Neal Stephenson and China Miéville, and my two favorite philosophers are Paul Feyerabend and Gilles Deleuze.

I think he’s an amateur philosopher given his passion & depth of reading.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: