Monthly Archives: May 2014

Graham Harman’s OOO is the denial of the concrete world and of its abundance in favour of an abstract world of withdrawn objects. And on academia .edu:

Originally posted on Object-Oriented Philosophy:
Someone sent me THIS RECORDING of Žižek’s recent lecture at Birkbeck, in which Jane Bennett and I are described as new materialists. I love Žižek, but that isn’t very precise on his part. Bennett is a materialist, and…

For Feyerabend there is no such thing as the “scientific image”, and common sense (or so-called “folklore”) is for him often much richer than the pale abstractions one tries to replace it with on the basis of a handful of … Continue reading →

I was enrolled in Philosophy at Sydney University from 1972 to 1981, so I participated in the events that led to the formation of the Department of General Philosophy in 1974, where I taught as a tutor for 5 years … Continue reading →

Harman’s OOO is not just anti-humanist, in its de-centering of ontology away from the primacy of the human, but misanthropic. Human beings, instances of the only concept of humanity that we know, belong, according to this system, to the sensual … Continue reading →

After a recent blog post, Steve Fuller stands accused of obscurantist confusionism, of having confused and conflated various positions in the speculative realist rainbow. However Fuller does not discuss Speculative Realism, but OOO and dark ecology. Unfortunately he barely mentions … Continue reading →

Originally posted on Off-Kilter:
Are only “subjects” “minds” hypostatizied? Or are ‘bodies’ and ‘matter’ just as much hypostatizations? There is a growing irritation in me while re/reading and trying to come to grips with the varying reductionist materialisms out there.…