Archive for the ‘Harman’ Category

This post is largely jumping off from a string of comments between Reza Negarestani, Benedict Singleton, and Alex Williams amongst others from several weeks ago. Also Liam Sprod discusses some similar issues here. It is also jumping from from Reza’s two recent lectures in NYC. It started with this quote from Giuseppe Longo: “In this […]


There are too many ways to address the difference, to try and even partially grapple what the difference really means. In Speculative Realism broadly construed and the related fields generally realism is taken as deflationary and materialism is inflationary. Realism is taken to be more concerned with epistemology whereas materialism is more concerned with doing […]


Recently I have been thinking about the collapse of metaphysics and ontology. It seems they were once clearly distinct but have become almost interchangeable. One the one hand metaphysics is the broader school of issues historically deemed to be beyond the physical which eventually became (due to the progression of modern science) that which is […]


I was quite unable to keep up with the exchanges between Jussi Parika, the commenters on his blog, and the OOO folks (Harman, Bogost, Bryant, Paul Caplan, and Robert Jackson). It’s always hard in such situations to separate the critique from the shit talking as argumentative strategy falls right in the middle. Part of the […]


Steven Shaviro has an excellent and length response to my previous two posts (and the subsequent discussion) here. Bogost, Bryant, and Harman have responded to Shaviro. Knowledge Ecology has a summary up as well here. And Jason from Immanent Transcendence has a recent (and very gracious) response here to several of my questions here. Update […]


Several responses to my last post are here at Knowledge Ecology, here at Immanence, here at Footnotes 2 Plato, here at After Nature, and at Immanent Transcendence. I doubt I can give each the response it deserves but, at least to keep the conversation going, I have several questions/comments in regards to each response. For […]


One of the rhetorical disadvantages to philosophies of process, or dispositions, or becoming (or however else you want to couch them) is that there’s a fuzziness that there doesn’t seem to be an urge to clarify. Part of this is the fact that these philosophies are non-common sensical and are therefore ontologically fuzzy – one […]



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 220 other followers