What is Object-Oriented Ontology?

Показать описание

Tadas Vinokur

Flicker Theory Reviews

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

I keep coming back to this as a nice, quick reminder, and I have new thoughts every time

nojusticeanywhere

I don’t know whether that’s you explanation of Kant or Harman’s, but it seems like a pretty bad understanding in a lot of ways.

Things-in-themselves most definitely don’t need cognizers to exist. That’s why they are things IN THEMSELVES.
I’m not sure whether you can say that things in themselves aren’t needed for cognition. Kant does himself ground noumena on the idea that appearances imply that which appears (which is just the thing-in-itself).
So it doesn’t seem like there can be cognition without them of course. Though, whether this means that noumena somehow cause perceptions is a different can of worms.

All of this also means that I really can’t see how OOO is too different from transcendental idealism. Since both endorse a kind of realism where the nature of the real isn’t transparent.
Really, I’m not sure what Harman’s account of objects even is exactly. This video doesn’t really address it. Which really then just seems to solidify the likeness rather than opposition to TI.

tehnik

Great job! Need more videos from you on philosophy.

Abhalerao

Have you read Timothy Morton's Hyperobjects?

pomod

I don't understand how this applies to artworks since they are obviously human-made and therefore objects with properties different from any other, regardless of whether they are contemporary. I suppose this is related to sustainability and environmental issues and trying to bridge this gap in the realm of philosophy relative to the gap left there by phenomenology.
However what would be the point of even writing down a theory that dismisses the value of the subject that the the theory itself is directed to.

tazmanian

Great summary. Was considering purchasing Harman’s book but wanted an overview first.

ZakMcDonald

Searched for "object oriented ontology".

This is first in the list.

Thank you and have a good one.

wmka

Is objected-oriented ontology refers to panpsychism?

Mahfuz

I finished Harmans book today. Great read. Still not fully grasped it

lugus

i don't get it. if you know how to refer to something that doesn't mean you know how to use them. You might know what it's used for, but not how to use them. Imagine a gold ring. Now imagine one that has twice the former ring's diameter. If you think you know how to use it and you pick it up and put it on your finger, then you clearly don't understand how to use it, and you should probably go and wash your hands. do people really think that knowing the name or shape of something is enough information to understand how it works or what it is intended to be used for? Just because someone knows the names of all the birds, doesn't necessarily mean they know physical differences between them.

intredastingvideos

Great video. I've been working recently on a photography project dealing with these sorts of questions. Are there any books or articles that you could recommend I look into? I've only begun scratching the surface into this type of thinking so am still trying to wrap my head around it all.

bendroege

Ken Wilber's theory about all this is much more coherent.

DarkMoonDroid

The 'uncovering' is reformatting noumena into the human language. Once the goal of uncovering noumena has been realised, we would still be talking about the uncovered truths in phenomenal terms; escaping the category of 'things in themselves'. Perhaps the disparity in these modes of interpretation and communication is distorting the conversation (as Wittgenstein might argue) away from the understanding that both discourses could take a seat within phenomenology, which doesn't depend on the idea that the noumenal world cannot function in some form of a systematic relationship in itself, albeit irreducible to our mode of interpretation (i.e thinking of it in terms of "form") without giving up its category of 'Noumena'. Perhaps the arguments here are inadvertently arguing with 'where we place these categories within our language system', escaping the bigger picture of what our language is seeking to gesture to. It is very possible to the phenomenologist that such systems within noumena do exist and can be reformatted into phenomena, whilst taking caution that perhaps it is /only specific/ systems that our capacities will ever be able to 'uncover', perhaps as a kind of 'confirmation bias'; by this, I mean to suggest that these 'noumenal systems' can only be uncovered/reformatted because the conform to our way of seeing things (we can only reformat what we are designed to reformat).

matthewdommett

This has really helped me, thanks a lot man

SuperGfunk

I've always felt like the "object-oriented" thing is deliberately borrowed from coding in order to make this philosophy seem smart/cool, and then without realising it some people get sucked in by it and want to be seen talking about it

Mychina