Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Remark on Citations -- Series Editor's Preface -- Preface to the Second Edition -- Introduction -- 1 After Finitude -- 2 The English Articles -- 3 The Number and the Siren -- 4 The Divine Inexistence -- 5 Reflections on Meillassoux's Non- Euclidean Philosophy -- 6 Interview with Quentin Meillassoux (August 2010) -- Appendix: Excerpts from L'Inexistence divine -- Works Cited -- Index

"One of the fifty most influential living philosophers, a "self-promoting charlatan" (Brian Leiter), and the orchestrator of an "online orgy of stupidity" (Ray Brassier). In Skirmishes: With Friends, Enemies, and Neutrals, Graham Harman responds with flair and wit to some of his best-known critics and fellow travelers. Pulling no punches, Harman gives a masterclass in philosophical argumentation by dissecting, analyzing, and countering their criticism, be it from the Husserlian, Heideggerian, or Derridean corner. At the same time, Skirmishes provides an excellent introduction to the hottest debates in Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, a speculative style of philosophy long foreclosed by the biases of mainstream continental thought, but which has turned in recent years into one of the most encompassing philosophies of our time, with a major impact on the arts, humanities, and architecture.

Part One considers four prominent books on speculative realism. In dialogue with Tom Sparrow's The End of Phenomenology, Harman expresses agreement with Sparrow's critique while taking issue with Lee Braver's "transgressive realism" as not realist enough. Turning to Steven Shaviro's The Universe of Things, Harman defends his own object-oriented model against Shaviro's brand of process philosophy, while also engaging in side-debate with Levi R. Bryant's distinction between virtual proper being and local manifestations. In the third chapter, on Peter Gratton's Speculative Realism: Problems and Prospects, Harman opposes the author's attempt to use Derridean notions of time and difference against Speculative Realism, in what amounts to his most extensive engagement with Derrida to date. Chapter Four gives us Harman's response to Peter Wolfendale's massive polemic in Object-Oriented Philosophy, which he shows is based on a failed criticism of Harman's reading of Heidegger and a grumpy commitment to rationalist kitsch.

Part Two responds to a series of briefer criticisms of object-oriented ontology. When Alberto Toscano accuses Harman and Bruno Latour of "neo-monadological" and anti-scientific thinking, Harman responds that the philosophical factors pushing Leibniz into monadology are still valid today. When Christopher Norris mocks Harman for seeing merit in the occasionalist school, he shows why Norris's middle-of-the-road scientific realism misses the point. In response to Dan Zahavi's contention that phenomenology has little to learn from speculative realism, Harman exposes the holes in Zahavi's reasoning. In a final response, Harman gives a point-by-point answer to Stephen Mulhall's critical foray in the London Review of Books. Amidst these lively debates, Harman sheds new light on what he regards as the central bias of philosophical modernism, which he terms the taxonomical standpoint. It is a book sure to provoke lively controversy among both friends and foes of object-oriented thought."

Cover -- Copyright -- Introduction -- Notes -- 1 Prometheanism -- A Brassier at Goldsmiths -- B Brassier's Nihilism -- C The Path Ahead -- Notes -- 2 Vitalist Idealism -- A Grant at Goldsmiths -- B Grant's Philosophies of Nature After Schelling -- C A New Sense of Idealism -- Notes -- 3 Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) -- A OOO at Goldsmiths -- B The Withdrawn -- C Objects and Their Qualities -- D Vicarious Causation -- E The Crucial Place of Aesthetics -- Notes -- 4 Speculative Materialism -- A Meillassoux at Goldsmiths -- B Meillassoux's After Finitude -- C Glimpses of the Divine Inexistence -- Notes -- Conclusion: The Two Axes of Speculative Realism -- Notes -- References -- Index -- End User License Agreement

I n this article, American philosopher and founder of speculative realism, Graham Harman (born 1968) analyzes two types of political philosophy: the politics of truth, and the politics of power. Central to the former is the idea of access to political truth; for the latter it's the idea that «might makes right». According to Harman, both approaches rely on the same ontological mistake. This mistake consists in ignoring the role of objects in the service of something greater or smaller than those objects. Harman proposes a way to solve this error by providing a sketch of an object-oriented ontology, and a political philosophy that follows from it. In his opinion, it is free of the defects of the politics of truth and power. Harman draws the theoretical resources for this presentation from Martin Heidegger's writings on Hölderlin.Keywords: ontology, metaphysics, speculative realism, object-oriented ontology, Bruno Latour, Martin Heidegger, Hölderlin, political philosophy, politics of power, politics of truth ; У цій статті американський філософ і засновник спекулятивного реалізму Ґрем Гарман (нар. 1968) аналізує два типи політичної філософії: політику істини і політику сили. Для першої цен-тральним є проголошення доступу до політичної істини, для другої — ідея, за якою усе вирішується за принципом «хто сильніший». На думку Гармана, обидва підходи спираються на одну онтологічну помилку. Вона полягає в нехтуванні роллю об'єктів на користь чогось більшого чи мен-шого за ці об'єкти. Гарман пропонує шлях для виправлення цієї помил-ки, даючи нарис об'єктно-орієнтованої онтології та політичної філософії, яка з неї випливає. На його думку, вона позбавлена вад політик істини й сили. Теоретичний ресурс для цього нарису Гарман знаходить у текстах Мартіна Гайдеґґера, присвячених Гельдерліну.Ключові слова: онтологія, метафізика, спекулятивний реалізм, об'єк-тно-орієнтована онтологія, Бруно Латур, Мартін Гайдеґґер, Гельдерлін, полі-тична філософія, політика сили, політика істини

Mi libro Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory (2016) presenta el estudio de caso de la "Compañía Holandesa de las Indias Orientales" con el propósito de dar con un conjunto de reglas alternativas a las establecidas por la Teoría del Actor-Red para el análisis social. Resulta interesante notar que la reacción negativa de Bruno Latour hacia mi libro se dirige principalmente al uso metafórico del concepto de "decadencia". Lo que más parece incomodar a Latour es que dicho concepto sea una metáfora "biológica", que ningún historiador podría tomar en serio, por tanto, no serviría para discutir objetos nobiológicos. En este artículo desarrollo la metáfora de la decadencia en su conexión con un objeto social específico con el fin de demostrar que su supuesto sentido "biológico" se deriva más bien de un profundo sentido biográfico no considerado en sus objeciones