I am finally diving into Levi Bryant’s “Democracy of Objects”, and I gotta say, I do not know why I hadn’t looked At this sooner.
This is not a big post; I was only reminded of my position:
It is due to the current correlational episteme — not in spite of — that we have access to objects in-themselves that are not for human thought. It is due to the ubiquity of thought that we can know the object outside of human subjectivity, perception, language, etc…
The object ontologists all stake thier claim in one way or another upon correlationalism; basically that we can know of objects that exist outside of thought, or outside of the phenomenal thinker.
Again: My point is it is due to the total inclusivity of thought that we are thus able to have knowlegde of objects in themselves — contra Kant and others who pose this condition as leaving the object as a moot point, totally removed from consideration.
Flat Ontology, Questions, and Assemblages
— Read on larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2020/02/17/flat-ontology-questions-and-assemblages/
Years ago when I first Encountered object oriented ontology of Graham Harman￼, And then was moved into Levi Bryant and his object ontology, I didn’t really understand Bryant’s take￼. In the past year or so though I have been finding that Briidge probably Has contributed just as much has Harman in this area. In fact, I think it was Bryant that came up with the term￼ for Harman. ￼￼
I was immediately struck by Harman’s ideas because, honestly, I had been playing around with the same kind of approach on things. I think Bryant is saying something slightly different, but in so much as I have remained open and continually come back to Bryant and his writings in his blogs, I’m actually encountering more Differences in Harman than my own ideas, and this seems to have allowed me to appreciate what Bryant is saying in his books as well.
Check out Levi Bryant if you’re interested in object ontology for sure. ￼
But it did cross my mind just now why it is that Harmon is the one that is or seems to be more “famous” or even “infamous” for object ontology then Bryant.
And I think it could be because Harmon was a sports writer, and so his writing in itself is a little bit more approachable, a little bit more like someone who is writing for an audience who wants to be entertained and educated.
So I guess we should never underestimate writing craft as part of why any philosophical ideas￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼ May enjoy more or less popularity. ￼