In metaphysics, object-oriented ontology (OOO) is a 21st-century Heidegger-influenced school of thought that rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects.[1] This is in contrast to what it calls the "anthropocentrism"[dubious – discuss] of Kant's philosophy by proposing a metaphorical Copernican Revolution, which would displace the human from the center of the universe like Copernicus displaced the Earth from being the center of the universe.[2] Object-oriented ontology maintains that objects exist independently (as Kantian noumena) of human perception and are not ontologically exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects.[3] For object-oriented ontologists, all relations, including those between nonhumans, distort their related objects in the same basic manner as human consciousness and exist on an equal footing with one another.[4] — OOO Wiki
I wonder if it comes from the idea of speculative knowledge (as contrasted with practical knowledge). His argument against scientism is basically the idea that science is only concerned with practical knowledge, and the obvious alternative here is speculative knowledge. In that sense "speculative realism" could be something like "realism as an attempt to understand reality, with no ulterior motive."
Along these lines, I agree with the author in his wariness of Harman's attempt to see nothing unique in human thought: — Leontiskos
It seems to me the nth attempt to bring back to life metaphysics, realism, objectivity, by using a false interpretation of subjectivism to support it. They say that, with relativism, the subject is taken back to the centre of the universe, but this is not true. When we say that everything is subjective, it doesn't mean that the subject is the strong reference point that determines everything. A critical relativist knows perfectly that, once we say that everything is subjective, we also know that the subject is completely unreliable, otherwise it would not be a subject, it would be an alternative source of objectivity. So, the subject is not the new centre of the universe in relativism, postmodernism, weak thought. The subject is just the outcome of the self-demolition that metaphysics cannot avoid to get. As such, the subject is just an intuitive experience, not an objective entity able to be the centre of the world. — Angelo Cannata
Since I have no formal training in Philosophy, I won't presume to comment on the arcane discussion in the video, as it's mostly over my pointy little head. Instead, I'll merely note that the opposing worldviews, classified under relatively new labels of OOO or Speculative Realism versus Subjective Idealism, are extant on this forum under the more general & traditional categories of Materialism/Physicalism/Realism versus Metaphysicalism/Idealism.In Harman, the "essence" of an object is always "withdrawn" or "hidden" such that it cannot be interacted with. Therefore, it cannot be defined, but its influence is felt through its causative interactions with other objects, so we know there is an echo of "something" within the object that "Makes it that object" — schopenhauer1
Generic Information (more inclusive than Shannon), which influences the world through its "causative interaction". — Gnomon
You cannot compare your authentic subjectivity with anything else without first objectifying your authentic subjectivity.
This comparison is what Harman makes with his OOO. — Angelo Cannata
This video might help as a good jumping off point for a Harman's view of objects. Perhaps we can have a discussion on it? As I do think it more than indirectly deals with essences, by way of defining objects and their ontology. — schopenhauer1
Thus, it is always "speculative" because, though the human "form of life" so-to-say can never be avoided when conveying these concepts, the content of what is conveyed can be "about" the non-human forms of life, if you will. — schopenhauer1
Critique of correlationism
Related to 'anthropocentrism', object-oriented thinkers reject speculative idealist correlationism, which the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux defines as "the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other". Because object-oriented ontology is a realist philosophy, it stands in contradistinction to the anti-realist trajectory of correlationism, which restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought by disavowing any reality external to this correlation as inaccessible, and, in this way, fails to escape the ontological reification of human experience. — Object Oriented Ontology | Critique of Correlationism
On the other hand, of course plate tectonics is a theory that seeks to explain phenomena observed by humans; yet that seems to be a trivial factoid in regard to all the sciences bar, perhaps, quantum mechanics. — Janus
Physicalism- everything must be physical
Smallism- everything must exist must be basic/simple
Anti-fictionalism- everything must be real
Literalism- everything must be stated accurately.
Object is:
-anything that can't be reduced downwards or upwards
-undermining (no)
-overmining (no)
Leads to flat-ontology. — schopenhauer1
I think this kind of response is a robust challenge to ontology at this very basic level, though not an unanswerable one. But for our purposes here, if Harman is indeed claiming to have an answer to the question “What is an object?” and if it’s pretty much along the lines the videographer has given, I’d be curious to know what you all think Harman takes himself to be doing. What kind of question is he answering? How might he reply to the charge, “This is purely verbal”? — J
“Speculative realism” is an extremely broad term. All it takes to be a speculative realist is to be opposed to “correlationism,” Meillassoux’s term for the sort of philosophy (still dominant today) that bases all philosophy on the mutual interplay of human and world. — Brief SR/OOO Tutorial, by Graham Harman
So it's the idea that knowledge of the world is possible, and this knowledge is not automatically contaminated, distorted, or even conditioned by the human subject. This draws near to classical realism. — Leontiskos
I don’t think something like The Civil War or abstract or fictional ideas are can be considered objects, either, and that to do so risks undermining the actual objects involved in thinking about and expressing those ideas. — NOS4A2
Anyways, I'm going to take a look at the book. Thanks for sharing. — NOS4A2
These objects—the book, the guy reading it— are the ones at risk of being undermined by considering the Hobbit to be an object. Anyways, interesting stuff to think about. — NOS4A2
So it's the idea that knowledge of the world is possible, and this knowledge is not automatically contaminated, distorted, or even conditioned by the human subject. This draws near to classical realism. — Leontiskos
The notion of knowledge being contaminated or distorted by human subjects seems absurd given that we are speaking about human knowledge. — Janus
Take the question (apparently key to Harman), “What is an object?” Exactly what sort of question is this? Is it akin to a scientific or experimental question, which could be explored and perhaps answered by an investigation of the world? Is it more like a traditional metaphysical question, which might be answered a priori using some kind of transcendental argument a la Kant, or an appeal to logical principles? Or is the question really a pragmatic one – perhaps when we ask “What is an object?” we’re really asking what, out of the many possible uses of the word “object,” is the most useful or helpful one in philosophy – and of course we’d have to specify the uses we have in mind. — J
it seems that it is a pragmatic matter — Leontiskos
A bit like the child who wants to use a different color, but whose crayons are all shades of grey. — Leontiskos
But then he goes on to say (around 8:00) that Harman doesn't see it this way -- that he regards it as basic ontology, something that could be shown to be right or wrong, not just a useful idea. So I'm still unsure how Harman would argue for this. — J
I think your caveat -- "apart from animal knowledge" -- illustrates the problem of identifying knowledge per se with human knowledge. There would also, traditionally, be the question of God's knowledge. To this day, physicists like to talk about "God's PoV" or "the mind of God" as a shorthand for describing an ideal knowledge of how things are. Why would there be some sort of guarantee that human knowledge must coincide with this? And if you discount a God hypothesis, there are still the non-human animals. What they know is surely very different from our human knowledge. — J
Perhaps, instead of using words like "contaminated" or "distorted," we could simply speak of "perspectival" knowledge. That way, we avoid the idea -- which I assume you don't advocate -- that the word "knowledge" can only be applied to what humans know. — J
You are begging the Kantian question. You are not allowing yourself to see past Kant's axiom. — Leontiskos
As to what the word 'knowledge' can be applied to, I think that is a matter of stipulation, not fact. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.