MORE MONIST IDEALISM Article Review of Graham Harmans Bells and Whistles(1)

8/13/2019 MORE MONIST IDEALISM Article Review of Graham Harmans Bells and Whistles(1)

1/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM:

Review of Graham Harman's BELLS AND WHISTLES

by Terence Blake

Argument: Graham Harman judges science and common sense in

terms of the crude philosophical criteria of another age andfinds them lacking in knowledge of reality. He posits a shadowy

"withdrawn" realm of real objects in order to explain the

discrepancies between his naive abstract model of knowledge as

access and the concrete reality of the sciences. Works such as

THE QUADRUPLE OBJECT, THE THIRD TABLE and BELLS AND WHISTLES,

like the whole of his philosophy, are the record of Harman

noticing the discrepancies, but refusing to revise the model.

His solution is a dead-end, the timid, nostalgic, and

fundamentally misleading propounding of an antiquated

epistemology under the cover of a "new" ontology.


2/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2

OOO: A DEMI-POST-STRUCTURALISM

1)NOSTALGIA FOR THE STRUCTURE vs DECONSTRUCTION ALL THE WAY DOWN

We are living through a period of intellectual regression

in the real of !ontinental "hilosoph#$ a ne% regression that

proclais itself to &e a decisive progress &e#ond the erel#

negative and critical philosophies of the recent past' (et the

pluralist philosophies of Deleu)e$ *oucault$ Derrida and L#otard

cannot &e sued up in the one+sided iage of pure criti,ue'

Their critical dissolution of the dogatic residues contained in

even the ost innovative philosophies the# had encountered did

not leave us in a po%erless void of negativit# and paral#sis'

Their -deconstruction- %ent all the %a# do%n$ deconstructing

even the notion of criti,ue and li&erating the possi&ilit# of

ne% asse&lages and ne% processes of su&.ectivation' /e#ond the

criti,ue of the ne% figures of transcendence and ontotheolog#

the# gave concrete s0etches of ho% to see the %orld in ters of

a ver# different sort of ontolog# &ased on ianence 1 a

diachronic ontolog#'

2) OOO AS REGRESSIVE SUCCESSION

The recent prootion of philosophical successors to this

constellation of thin0ers of ianence$ such as /adiou and


3/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM

3i)e0$ has not led to an# real progress &ut to a la&our of

travest#ing the past 4one has onl# to loo0 at /adiou5s DELE63E

and 3i)e05s OR7ANS WIT8O6T /ODIES9 and to a return to such

intellectual dead+ends as Lacanian ps#choanal#sis' /ut even

these regressive philosophers reain in dialogue$ ho%ever one+

sided and un.ust$ %ith their illustrious predecessors$ and

strive to confront the at the level of conceptual richness that

characterised their %or0'

3) OOO AS POP FORMALISM

The ne:t step %as ta0en the epigoni; Meillassou:$ %ho

still retains an elevated st#le and at least an intention of

conceptual rigour< and its pop variant in 8aran5s adaptation of

/adiousian foralist ontolog# for the asses' The ethod %as to

0eep up the general aura of having -gone &e#ond- the older

supposedl# negative thin0ers &ut to radicall# siplif# the

conceptual level$ presenting eas# suar# presentations of the

ne% thought %hile convenientl# forgetting the conceptual paths

follo%ed'

4) DEMI-POST-STRUCURALISM

Thus certain figures have eerged in !ontinental "hilosoph#

that occup# a conceptual space that is half%a# &et%een

structuralis and post+structuralis' One could call the dei+

post+structuralists' /adiou is a good e:aple$ %ith his


4/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM =

atheatical reductionis' Still stuc0 in the pro&leatic space

opened up the Althusser+Lacan con.uncture$ these thin0ers tr#

to privilege Lacan as an alternative %a# out of structuralis

#et the# tr# to -rationalise- their pro&leatic appeals to

notions of speculative 0no%ledge &ased on ethodological rigour'

5) ONTOLOGICAL CRITIUE IS A FORMALISM

The pro&le %ith the priac# of foralist ethod is that it

is not content neutral' A foral ethod a0es su&stantive clais

a&out its doains of application coded into it' The opponents of

-ethod- are not cra)# spontaneit#+addicted narcissists &ut

people li0e /ohr and Einstein %ho claied that the epirical

ethod %as either the &otto+up heuristic li&ert# to e:plore an#

h#pothesis eans of an# suita&le procedure or else a post hoc

clarification$ not an a priori foralist topdo%n iperative' The

sta0es do not involve &lindl# insisting on the priorit# of

creation$ &ut ipl# having a place for the possi&ilit# of

novelt# and creation versus closing off in advance soe possi&le

developents$ often %ithout even noticing'

!) "ADIOU REMAR#ETISED:

SET-THEORETIC REDUCTION FOUNDS OOO$S AFFECTIVE REDUCTION

One can agree %ith &oth Mehdi /elha. >ace and Ale:ander

7allo%a# that it is /adiou5s set theoretic philsoph# that


5/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM ?

e:presses in its purest and ost general for the ne% paradig

that articulates e:plicitl# %hat is else%here .ust &lithel#

presupposed as a for of thought too evident to even &e a%are

of' The# indicate that the ne:t step in consolidating the

regression that /adiou5s philosoph#$ ho%ever innovative$ does

not initiate &ut rather registers and legitiates$ corresponds

to the far less a&itious productions of the o&.ect+oriented

ontologists' I sa# far less -a&itious- in the sense of

conceptual a&ition$ &ecause their a&ition is of a different

order' The# are the ar0etised version of the /adiou+3i)e0

constellation$ and so the e:treel# politicised tone has &een

discreetl# dissolved to leave a ore deagogic pac0aging to the

stale ideas that OOO trupets a&itiousl# as the ne%

construction after so uch criti,ue' The# proulgate a du&ed

do%n de+ar:ised version of the set+theoretic universe

e:plicated /adiou'

%) OOO AS SYNCHRONIC ONTOLOGY LAGS "EHIND LARUELLE$S NON-

STANDARD PHILOSOPHY

It is noral that in this conte:t *ran@ois Laruelle5s

philosoph# is at last coing into its o%n' It could not full#

succeed %hile the %or0 of Deleu)e and Derrida %ere in progress$

as his criti,ues of that %or0 %ere onl# half+true$ &ased on

giving it an ultiatel# uncharita&le reading as reaining %ithin


6/44


the nors of standard philosoph#$ and refraining fro

considering other possi&le readings' Laruelle has pursued over

the decades his un%avering coitent to ianence and his

criti,ue of sufficient philosoph#$ and this pro.ect shines forth

no% against the &ac0ground of the regression that /adiou+3i)e0+

Meillassou: and the OOO:ians represent'

&) OOO AS SYNCHRONIC ONTOLOGY LAGS "EHIND LATOUR$S COMPOSITIONISM

Despite his insinuations to the contrar#$ /runo Latour %ith

his copositionis is the direct application of

deconstructionist and post+structuralist thought$ %hich he is

ver# failiar %ith' 8is tal0 a&out his -epirical- research is

ver# isleading and contains overtones of scientistic &ravado$

as his s#ste is in an# places a logical continuation of the

%or0 of on these predecessors' 8e is ho%ever a good populariser

of good ideas$ and his %or0 should &e encouraged as long as %e

do not accept his o%n conte:tualisation of his ideas' Latour is

ve# uch an inheritor of Deleu)e$ L#otard$ *oucault$ Derrida$

and Serres$ and also the intellectual conteporar# of Laruelle

and Stiegler' It is this philosophical inheritance that gives

his %or0 its superiorit# over /adiou5s and of 8aran5s$ not an#

priac# of the epirical over the philosophical'

') OOO AS SYNCHRONIC ONTOLOGY LAGS "EHIND "ERNARD STIEGLER$S


7/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM B

PHARMACOLOGY

/ernard Stiegler is activel# re+reading and re+thin0ing

thin0ers such as L#otard$ Deleu)e and 7uattari$ *oucault$ and

Derrida &ecause he finds that despite the conceptual advances

achieved this generation the# represent also a degree of

failure in not helping us thin0 ade,uatel# the transforations

in the econo# and in digital technologies that are ipacting

our lives and re,uiring of us a ne% orientation in our

e:istences' 6nli0e /runo Latour$ Stiegler is ,uite up front

a&out the influences on his ideas and the need to re+read such

philosophical sources %ith ne% e#es$ i'e' in relation to

conteporar# events'

1() HARMAN$S ONTOLOGICAL CRITIUE IS TECHNOCHRATIC FORMALISM

/ernard Stiegler has argued that it is regretta&le that in

!ontinental "hilosoph# a direct confrontation %ith Althusser5s

positions on the science+ideolog# distinction never too0 place'

This non+engageent %ith Althusser5s dualist and dearcationist

episteolog# left the field free not .ust for scientis 4or its

&inar# opposite$ relativis9 &ut also unprotected fro the

hegeon# of technocrats and the t#rann# of e:perts$ and also

fro the priac# of anageent over politics' A distant

conse,uence of this neglect has &een the rise of 7raha 8aran5s

OOO pac0aged as conteporar# !ontinental "hilosoph# %hen it is


8/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM C

in fact its e:act opposite$ a regression to a for of

Althusseris$ onl# de+ar:ed$ depoliticised$ and de+scientised'

11) HARMAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND SCIENTIFIC ANTI-REDUCTIONISM

*or e:aple$ in T8E T8IRD TA/LE 7raha 8aran gives a

popularised version his o%n theoretical position in the for of

a fla%ed reading of and an unsatisf#ing response to Sir Arthur

Eddington5s faous parado: of the t%o ta&les' 6nfortunatel#$

8aran sho%s hiself incapa&le of grasping the anti+

reductionistic iport of Eddington5s arguent and proposes an

a&stract philosophical dualis to replace Eddington5s pluralist

vision of scientific research' It is tacitl# iplied that the

theoretical .ustification for this unsatisf#ing presentation is

to &e found else%here in 8aran5s %or0s$ &ut this is not the

case'

12) HARMAN CANNOT UNDERSTAND EPISTEMOLOGICAL ANTIREDUCTIONISM

8aran5s position is one of a surface pluralis 4for 8aran

there are ultiple rgies of 0no%ing for an O&.ect9 overcoded

a deep onis and dearcationis 4the huanist$ the

scientific$ and the coon sense o&.ects are -siulacra-$ onl#

the %ithdra%n o&.ect is real9 e&edded in a s#nchronic

ontological frae 4tie is not an ontologicall# pertinent

feature of real o&.ects'


9/44


13) OOO: ONTOLOGICAL ACTIVISM POLITICAL PASSIVISM

Toda#$ o&.ect+oriented philosoph# is at a loss' Its

hac0ne#ed set of critical ters 4philosoph# of access$ shas and

siulacra$ lavalap# overining$ atoistic underining$ streas

of &ecoing$ correlationis9 clearl# have no point of

application at all to the ne% lines of research opened up in

recent !ontinental "hilosoph# a.or thin0ers such as /runo

Latour$ /ernard Stiegler$ and *ran@ois Laruelle' One has onl# to

loo0 at the utter incoprehension that OOO:ians anifest %ith

regard to Laruelle5s non+philosoph# to see that their clai to

-ove &e#ond- deconstruction is an ept# &luff'

14) OOO$S FAILED ENCOUNTERS: TRAVESTY OF THE PAST

INCOMPREHENSION OF THE PRESENT

The OOO:ians never understood the arguents of their

philosophical predecessors$ despite their pretentions To &eing

the conteporar# response to and inheritors of the philosophies

of deconstruction and of post+structuralis that flourished at

the end of the last centur#' Thus the# are ille,uiped to engage

the ideas of the true creative successors' *ar fro inaugurating

a ne% ore constructive philosoph# that &uilds on the positive

achieveents of the past %hile rectif#ing or a&andoning its

erroneous pro&leatics and procedures$ 7raha 8aran5s /ELLS AND


10/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM FG

W8ISTLES; MORE S"E!6LATIHE REALISM is a sterile copendiu of

OOO5s failiar &ut disappointing histor# of isunderstandings

and failed encounters$ and its pu&lication is a fitting funerar#

onuent to a set of affective gesticulations that never ,uite

cohered into a philosoph#'

2( THESES ON GRAHAM HARMAN$S A"STRACT MONIST IDEALISM

1) OOO *s +, +s./+0. ,*s

8aran5s ontolog# reduces the ultiplicit# and a&undance of

the %orld to -eergent- unities that e:clude other approaches to

and understandings of the %orld 1 his o&.ects are the -onl#

real- o&.ects$ all the rest are -utter shas-' More iportantl#$

his o%n 4philosophical9 0no%ledge of o&.ects is the onl# real

0no%ledge' All that is ordinaril# thought of as 0no%ledge$ &oth

theoretical and practical$ is also utter sha; -8uan 0no%ledge

deals %ith siulacra or phantos$ and so does huan practical

action- 4/ELLS AND W8ISTLES$ F29' 8aran5s -realis- de+realises

ever#thing e:cept his o%n a&stract 0no%ledge and his %ithdra%n

o&.ects'

2) OOO *s /,678 /960.*,*s.

Repeatedl#$ 8aran goes to great lengths to criticise a

generic &ut non+e:istent -reductionis-$ #et he sees to have no

idea %hat reductionis is' 8e easil# %ins points against stra%


11/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM FF

en$ and then proceeds to advocate one of the %orst fors of

reductionis iagina the reduction of the a&undance of the

%orld to an a&stract hidden real of untoucha&le$ un0no%a&le$

#et intelligi&le$ -o&.ects-'

3) T9 ;*.6/+;, /9+7 *v0+7

In OOO %ords do not ean %hat the# see to' 8aran

e,uivocates %ith the failiar connotations and associations of

-o&.ect- to give the ipression that he is a concrete thin0er$

%hen the level of a&straction ta0es us to the heights of a ne%

for of negative theolog#; the invisi&le$ un0no%a&le$ ineffa&le

o&.ect that %ithdra%s' No concrete e:aple can &e given$ as it

%ould &e ta0en fro the sensual$ i'e' sha$ real' (et 8aran

repeatedl# gives e:aples$ %hich in his o%n ters is the ver#

categor# ista0e that his philosoph# is designed to prevent'


12/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM F2

5) OOO *s ,.7=*0+7 ,**7*s: .9/9 +/9 , ?/9+7


13/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM F

and cople:it# of the real %orld &ut in fact replaces the

ultiplicitous and variegated %orld of science and coon sense

%ith a set of &loodless and lifeless a&stractions 4-siulacra-$

-phantos-$ -ghostl# o&.ects-9'

%) OOO$s /9+7


14/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM F=

un0no%a&le$ uncaptura&le realit# and the idea that it can &e

captured in soe ver# a&stract and indirect %a#' In virtue of

the un0no%a&ilit# of his o&.ects he is o&liged to place all

t#pes of 0no%ledge$ including the scientific one on the sae

plane 40no%ledge of -siulacra or phantos-9$ as illusor#$ and

at the sae tie presue that %e can 0no% soething a&out these

o&.ects 4e'g' that the# e:ist$ and that the# %ithdra%9'

1() OOO 07+*s . @,; .9 ,@,;+79

"hilosophical intellection in 8aran5s s#ste has the

contradictor# role of 0no%ing ontologicall# the real$ as that

%hich %ithdra%s fro 0no%ing' In effect$ science is deoted to

the status of non+0no%ledge$ as the real cannot &e 0no%n' 8aran

is caught in a series of contradictions$ as he %ants to have his

un0no%a&le realit# and #et to 0no% it' !oon sense cannot 0no%

realit#$ nor the huanities$ nor even science'

11) OOO *s +, 9*s.97=8 +s>9/+6*,= +s +, ,.7=8

The &asis of 8aran5s s#ste is an episteological criti,ue

of so+called -philosophies of access-$ %hich leads hi to

propose an alternative episteolog# disguised as an ontolog#'

The as,uerade is necessar# to give the ipression that he has

found a solution to %hat he sees as the ipasse of access'

6nfortunatel# no solution is given &ecause 8aran is still


15/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM F?

oving inside the pro&leatic of access$ a pro&leatic %hich %as

a&andonned ever# a.or philosoph# of the 2Gth !entur#' To

hide the a&sence of solution 8aran is led to posit a solution

in a previousl# un0no%n ontological diension' This o&fuscation

accounts for the strange i:ture of ontological and

episteological considerations that caracteri)es 8aran5s

philosophical st#le' This generates such contradictions as

pretending to accoplish a return to the concrete and giving us

in fact a&straction$ and pretending to critici)e reduction and

in fact perforing an even ore radical reduction'

11) OOO *s 9*s.97=*0+7 /97+.*v*s

8aran5s episteolog# is relativist$ deoting science to an

instance of the general relativis of fors of 0no%ledge$ all

&elonging to the %orld of siulacra' 8o%ever$ fiat$ his o%n

philosophical intellection and soe artistic procedures are

partiall# e:cluded fro this relativisation' (et no criterion of

dearcation is offered' 8aran di:it ust suffice'

12) F/ OOO /9+7 @,;796=9 *s *ss*79

8aran .udges science in ters of the crude philosophical

criteria of another age and finds it lac0ing in 0no%ledge of

realit#' 8e is then o&liged to posit a shado%# -%ithdra%n- real

of real o&.ects to e:plain the discrepancies &et%een his naive


16/44


a&stract odel of 0no%ledge as access and the realit# of the

sciences' /ELLS AND W8ISTLES9$ li0e the %hole of his philosoph#$

is the record of 8aran noticing the discrepancies$ &ut refusing

to revise the odel' 8is solution is a dead+end$ a tiid$

nostalgic action propounding an anti,uated episteolog# under

the cover of a -ne%- ontolog#'

13) OOO *s *69+7*s

7raha 8aran proclais that his philosoph# is realist$

%hen it is one of the ost thoroughgoingl# idealist philosophies

iagina&le' Tie is unreal$ and so is ever# coon sense o&.ect

and ever# ph#sical o&.ect' All are declared to &e -siulacra-'

-Space-$ one a# o&.ect$ is real for 8aran$ &ut that is no

space one %ould ever recognise; neither coon sense space nor

ph#sical space 4&oth -siulacra-9$ 8aranian space is an

a&stract -%ithdra%n- intelligi&le space'

14) O,.7=8 *s ,. /*+/8 / H+/+,

8aran5s real poleic is in the doain of episteolog#

against a stra% an position that he calls the philosoph# of

huan access' No iportant philosoph# of at least the last ?G

#ears is a philosoph# of access$ so the illusion of a revolution

in thought is an illusion generated the isuse of the notion

of -access-$ inflating it into a gra&+all concept under %hich


17/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM FB

an#thing and ever#thing can &e su&sued' /ut a philosoph# of

non+access is still episteological$ in 8aran5s case it ta0es

the for of a pessiistic negative episteolog# that su&tracts

o&.ects fro eaningful huan theoretical 0no%ledge and

practical intervention 4cf' T8E J6ADR6"LE O/KE!T$ %here Eg#pt

itself is declared to &e an o&.ect$ al&eit$ strangel# enough$ a

-non+ph#sical- one$ and so un0no%a&le and untoucha&le9'

15) #,;796=9 +,6 /+0.*09 +/9 *77s/8: /+6*0+7 0+,=9 *s

*ss*79

One conse,uence of the reduction of 0no%ledge and practice

to the status of ept# phantass and illusions of access is that

glo&al change is ipossi&le' The ontological neutralisation of

our 0no%ledge is allied to its practical 4and thus political9

neutralisation' This e:plain5s 8aran5s ina&ilit# to deal %ith

criti,ues such as that of Ale:ander 7allo%a#$ an# eans other

than denial'

1!) OOO *s 0,09.+778 *,09/9,. +,6 .9/*,7=*0+778

0,s96

8aran s#steaticall# confuses access$ contact$ relation

and interaction' 8is arguent to esta&lish the ina&ilit# of

relational ontologies to e:plain change e:hi&its rather his

ina&ilit# to understand relations and to a0e siple conceptual


18/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM FC

distinctions'

1%) H; 0+, + ;*.6/+;,


19/44


The notion of cuts$ .ups$ ruptures$ intervals$ or

discontinuities is a far ore useful concept than the %holesale

&ifurcation operated the notion of -%ithdra%al-$ %hich is

&oth too siple and too a&solute 4there are no degrees of

%ithdra%al$ all %ithdra%al is of the sae t#pe$ there are no

special conditions for %ithdra%al$ it is a purel# non+epirical

concept9 and splits the %orld in t%o 4realsensual9' 8aran5s

s#ste is too a&solute %ith its suar# dualiss to &e a&le to

deal %ith the fine+grained distinctions that coe up in our

e:perience'

2() OOO$s /9+7 /9+7 +7**96 +,6 69-

>+,.**96 v*6

Real o&.ects are not ,ualifia&le in ters of the epirical

predicates of coon sense or of science$ &oth declared to &e

reductionist' Nor are real o&.ects ,uantifia&le' In /ELLS AND

W8ISTLES 8aran declares several ties that e:plaining things

in ters of atheatical structures is reductionist' So finall#

his real o&.ects are neither ,ualitativel# distinct 4in ters of

epirical predicates &elonging to the phantasatic reals of

coon sense$ the huanities$ the sciences$ and even

atheatics9$ nor are the# nuericall# or ,uantitativel#

distinct 4as atheatics is itself a reductionist phantas9' So

8aran5s real real is a de+,ualified and de+,uantified void and


20/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2G

his philosoph# is an intellectuall# de&ased for of nihilis'

THE SROO PROPAGANDA ?TUTORIAL?

1) P/*+08: ./+,s09,69,.+7 *7s8 vs 9*/*0+7 /9s9+/0

One of the &iggest o&.ections to OOO concerns the ,uestion

of priac#$ %hich reains oot in conteporar# philosoph#'

8aran5s ontological turn gives priac# to 4transcendental$

eta+level9 philosoph#' *e#era&end articulates a Machian

position$ one that gives priac# neither to philosoph# nor to

ph#sics$ &ut defends the open+indedness of epirical 4though

not necessaril# scientific9 research'

2) R9s9+/0 *s ./+,sv9/s+7

This can &e clarified e:aining *e#era&end5s defense of

the -%a# of the scientist- as against the -%a# of the

philosopher-' *e#era&end5s references to Mach 4and to "auli9

sho% that this -%a# of the scientist- is transversal$ not

respecting the &oundaries &et%een scientific disciplines nor

those &et%een the sciences and the huanities and the arts' So

it is ore properl# called the -%a# of research-' *e#era&end

tal0s of Mach5s ontolog#5s -disregard for distinctions &et%een

areas of research' An# ethod$ an# t#pe of 0no%ledge could enter

the discussion of a particular pro&le- 4pFB9'


21/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2F

3) E/,s. M+0: Ps*.*v*s. vs P7/+7*s.

Ernst Mach is often seen as a precursor of the logical

positivists$ an e:ponent of the idea that -things- are logical

constructions &uilt up out of the sensor# ,ualities that copose

the %orld$ ere &undles of sensations' 8e %ould thus &e a 0e#

e:aple of %hat 7raha 8aran in T8E J6ADR6"LE O/KE!T calls

-overining-' *e#era&end has sho%n in a nu&er of essa#s that

this vision of Mach5s -philosoph#- 4the ,uotation ar0s are

necessar#$ according to *e#era&end -&ecause Mach refused to &e

regarded as the proponent of a ne% -philosoph#--$ S!IEN!E IN A

*REE SO!IET($ F29 is erroneous$ &ased on a isreading the

logical positivists that confounds his general ontolog# %ith one

specific ontological h#pothesis that Mach %as at pains to

descri&e as a provisional and research+relative specification of

his ore general proposal'

4) G9,9/+7 M9.67=8

*ollo%ing Ernst Mach$ *e#era&end e:pounds the rudients of

%hat he calls a general ethodolog# or a general cosolog# 4this

a&iguit# is iportant; *e#era&end$ on general grounds &ut also

after a close scrutin# of several iportant episodes in the

histor# of ph#sics$ proceeds as if there is no clear and sharp


22/44


dearcation &et%een ontolog# and episteolog#$ %hereas 8aran$

%ithout the slightest case stud#$ asserts the e:istence of such

a dichoto#' 8aran5s actual practice$ I have argued$ proceeds

ignoring the distinction and i:ing in a confused %a#

episteological and ontological considerations9'

5) MACH$S ONTOLOGY

*e#era&end discusses Mach5s ontolog# in S!IEN!E IN A *REE

SO!IET(4F+2G9 and a0es it clear that it is one of the

enduring inspirations of his %or0' 8e clais that Mach5s

ontolog# can &e suarised in t%o points;

i9 the %orld is coposed of eleents an their relations

ii9 the nature of these eleents and their relations is to

&e specified epirical research

!) HARMAN$S ONTOLOGY

One a# note a rese&lance %ith 7raha 8aran5s ontolog#$

suarised in his - &rief SROOO tutorial-$ reprinted as !hapter

F of /ELLS AND W8ISTLES;

i9 Individual entities of various different scales 4not

.ust tin# ,uar0s and electrons9 are the ultiate stuff of the

cosos'

ii9 These entities are never e:hausted their

relations'''O&.ects %ithdra% fro relation'


23/44


%) THE ELEMENTS: M+0*+, 9,,9ss vs H+/+,*+, 07s/9

The difference is illuinating' Whereas Mach leaves the

nature of these eleents open$ allo%ing for the e:ploration of

several h#potheses$ 8aran transcendentall# reduces these

possi&ilities to one; eleents are o&.ects 4N/; this reduction

of the possi&ilities to one$ enshrined in a transcendental

principle$ is one of the reasons for calling 8aran5s OOO an

o&.ectal reduction9'

&) THE RELATIONS: As7.9 W*.6/+;+7 vs D9=/99s +,6

+7*.*9s C,,90.*, +,6 D*s0,,90.*,

/# allo%ing epirical research to specif# the relations$

Mach does not give hiself an a priori principle of %ithdra%al;

here again -%ithdra%al- is .ust one possi&ilit# aong an#'

Another advantage of this ontolog# of unspecified eleents is

that it allo%s us to do research across disciplinar# &oundaries$

including that &et%een science and philosoph#'

') TEMPORALITY: S8,0/,*0 vs D*+0/,*0

Mach5s ontolog# is diachronic$ evolving %ith and as part of

epirical research' !onversel#$ 8aran5s ontolog# is s#nchronic$

dictating and fi:ing transcendentall# the eleents of the %orld'


24/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2=

1() INTRA-WORLD REDUCTION: 9v9/8,9 97s9 . H+/+, *s

?/960.*,*s.?

8aran has invented a ne% voca&ular# to descri&e various

t#pes of reductionis that he &elieves he has discerned in

various philosophical oves' The ove of e:plaining a

acroscopic o&.ect such as a ta&le in ters of its atoic and

su&+atoic is called -underining-' E:plaining the ta&le in

ters of the flu: of perceptions is called -overining-' 8aran

has recentl# detected arguents that a0e &oth oves at once$ so

he has &aptised the -duoining-' A nota&le feature of all three

oves is that their reduction operates inside onl# one of the

%orlds that 8aran discusses 1 the %orld of -utter shas-'

11) TRANSWORLD REDUCTION: H+/+, *s + s907+.*v9

/960.*,*s.

/ut 8aran hiself operates a different sort of reduction

that reduces the realit# of one %orld$ the -sha- %orld of

sensual o&.ects$ to that of the -real- %orld of %ithdra%n

o&.ects' As this reduction cuts across &oth %orlds$ I propose to

call it transining-' The difference %ith the preceding is that

intra+%orld reduction is an epirical h#pothesis$ that is to &e

tested and to /e discarded if it does not hold up to epirical

investigation' 8aran5s o&.ectal reduction is an apodictic

posit$ invulnera&le to epirical testing'


25/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2?

HARMAN$S TEMPORAL DENIALISM: 0+,=9 *s

?/*669,? 8 /97+.*,+7 ,.7=*9s

We coe no% to one of 8aran5s ore aggressive arguents

against pluralist relationis 1 that it cannot accoodate

change' 8aran5s philosoph# in fact denies all realit# to tie

and is an e:tree for of spatialised s#nchronic ontolog#$ #et

he pro.ects his difficult# %ith the concept of real tie onto

the positions that he supposedl# goes &e#ond;

1) H+/+, +=+*,s. /97+.*,+7 ,.7=*9s: 0+,=9 *s /*669,

8aran5s aster arguent against relational ontologies is

that the# cannot e:plain change$ that if ever#thing %ere related

nothing %ould change' This is patentl# false$ as relations

include teporal relations' Deleu)e for e:aple tal0s a&out &oth

0inetic 4relative speeds and accelerations9 and d#naic

4relative forces$ and relative capacities to affect and to &e

affected9 relations' It is ludicrous to clai that Deleu)e5s

s#ste entails that change is ipossi&le'

2) H+/+, 69s ,. ,69/s.+,6 /97+.*,s

This forgetting 0inetic and d#naic relations$ and ore

generall# 8aran5s confusion over teporal relations sho%s that


26/44


8aran5s real %orld has no place for tie and for change and

ultiplicit#' 8aran constantl# and indiscriinatel# conflates

relations in general %ith specific su&sets of relations such as

interactions$ and also %ith specific t#pes of relation such as

contact and access'

3) H+/+,$s *,0/99,s*, 6*+0/,*0 ,.7=*9s

8aran is una&le to understand the positions he is arguing

against$ and that he is supposed to have gone &e#ond' 8e

criti,ues onl# stra% an positions that have never e:isted' 8e

has no understanding of$ for e:aple$ Deleu)e$ and .ust

deprecates his philosoph# %ithout getting into an# detail'

4) H+/+,$s +/=9,.s +/9 +90.*v9 +,6 ,. 0,09.+7

8aran gives pseudo+conceptual affective refutations %ith

no citations and no anal#sis$ ere picture+thin0ing designed to

produce the sae -eure0a- e:perience as a coparative pu&licit#'

There is no su&stance to 8aran5s accusation$ %hich is close to

an Or%ellian parod# 4fro -%ar is peace- to -tie is stasis-9'

*urther$ he has given no su&stantial account of %hat is %rong

%ith so+called -relational- ontologies in general$ e:cept for

his aster+arguent that if ever#thing %ere related change %ould

&e ipossi&le' 8aran tries to insinuate that in his ontolog#

change can &e accounted for'


27/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2B

5) T*9 *s ,/9+7 / H+/+,

8aran denies the realit# of tie and so his ontolog# is

s#nchronic in a ver# strong sense' 8is understanding of other

philosophers is &ased on a s#nchronic reduction of their st#le'

Even his reading 4in T8E T8IRD TA/LE9 of Eddington5s t%o ta&les

arguent falsifies it e:tracting it fro the %hole oveent

of Eddington5s -Introduction- to his &oo0 T8E NAT6RE O* T8E

"8(SI!AL WORLD$ and fro his vision of the oveent of research

in general'

!) H+/+,$s 69,*+7 .9/+7*.8

8aran .ust doesn5t -get- teporal relations' 8ence his

repeated$ and a&surd$ clai that if ever#thing %as coposed of

relations nothing %ould change' As if oving faster or slo%er

than$ accelerating faster or slo%er than$ &eing attracted or

repelled or pushed or %hirled around %ere not relations'

HARMAN$S A"STRACTIVE ONTOLOGY: 0+/*s, ;*.

"+6*

1) H+/+, +,6 .9 ,97*9/+7 8.9s*s

We have traversd a period of polarisation during %hich the

neoli&eral do:a reigned uncontested alost ever#%here$ e:cept in


28/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM 2C

a fe% acadeic and para+acadeic enclaves$ %here a -refined- or

aristocratic criti,ue %as ela&orated' The philosophical result

of the e:tenuation of this cognitive polarisation is in part the

developent of an a&stractive 4and a+political9 ontolog# of

o&.ects as legitiation$ rela# and effectuation of the

neoli&eral h#pothesis 47raha 8aran9$ and in part the

ela&oration of the su&tractive ontolog# of ultiples as

legitiation$ rela# and effectuation of the counist h#pothesis

4/adiou9'

2) T/,0+.96 P7/+7*s +,6 D*+0/,*0 S799,.

In &oth /adiou and 8aran %e have a truncated for of

pluralis; a s#nchronic ontolog# of o&.ectal ultiples %here the

diachronic diensionis added on after%ards as a suppleent'

/adiou has t%o ontologies grafted together 4/eing AND the

event9$ 8aran has ontologicall# real o&.ects$ and sha tie'

3) U,/9+7*.8 .*9

*or 8aran tie is not a real relation &et%een real

o&.ects$ &ut rather a -sensual- relation &et%een sensual

o&.ects$ in the illusor# doain of siulacra 4T8E T8IRD TA/LE

calls these sensual o&.ects$ i'e' the o&.ects of coon sense

and of the sciences$ -utter shas-$ /ELLS AND W8ISTLES calls

the -phantos- and -siulacra9' *or /adiou tie in the strong


29/44


sense &elongs to the event in the naing intervention$ and there

also$ as for 8aran$ sees to &e dependent$ at least in part$ on

su&.ectivit#'

4) S/+09 P7/+7*s +,6 Ov9/06*,= M,*s

There is also a onis %hich coes to overcode this

ontological pluralis$ at &oth the ontological and the

episteological level' At the aterial or sensual level %e have

ultiples of ultiples or plural o&.ects$ prehended in ultiple

0no%ledges' At the foral or eta+level %e have transcendental

restrictive categorisation and the priac# of philosophical

intellection'

5) O,.7=*0+7 M,*s

*or 8aran the real is a uni,ue and separate doain$ real

o&.ects are -%ithdra%n-< the o&.ects of coon sense$ of the

huanities and of the sciences are pure siulacra' *or /adiou

the real is the non+,ualified atheatical ultiple$ and the

o&.ects of coon sense$ &ut also of the sciences and of the

-huanities-$ are constructed out of these ultiples 4it is to

&e noted$ and this signals an iportant difference &et%een

/adiou5s and 8aran5s s#stes$ that for /adiou these constructed

o&.ects are not necessaril# siulacra$ nor is 0no%ledge of the

necessaril# sha9' In &oth cases there is ontological priac# of


30/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM G

one doain placed over and a&ove the others' *or /adiou the

un,ualified doain of ultiples of ultiples has priac# and so

Matheatics is ontolog#' *or 8aran the doain of real o&.ects

is un,ualified in ters of 0no%a&le coon sense or scientific

properties$ even if it is ,ualified in ters of its o%n nouenal

properties'

!) E*s.97=*0+7 M,*s

*or 8aran coon sense and scientific 0no%ledge do not

accede to the realit# of o&.ects$ the onl# possi&le 0no%ledge is

indirect and appertains to philosophical intellection or to the

arts under the control of o&.ect+oriented ontolog#$ %hich

dissipates the ontological and episteological illusions$ such

as the naturalist pre.udice and the scientistic pre.udice'

Siilarl#$ for /adiou$ to each doain there corresponds a

generic and paradigatic truth+procedure 4athee$ poe$

political invention$ love9' "hilosoph# in /adiou5s s#ste is not

itself a truth procedure$ &ut serves to asse&le the truths of

an epoch and to enounce the coon configuration of the

paradigatic procedures of the con.uncture and also to dissipate

the pre.udices resultng fro the suture of philosoph# to .ust

one of these truth+doains' /adiou here is again ore pluralist

than 8aran$ as he recognises the e:istence of four truth+

doains$ and not .ust one'


31/44


%) T9 6907*,9 H+/+,$s +s./+0.*v9 ,.7=8 +,6 "+6*$s

s./+0.*v9 ,.7=8

A&stractive and su&tractive ontologies are in regression

copared to the pluralist philosophies of their predecessors'

The# are the copleentar# representatives 4a politicised

counist version in /adiou5s case$ a -de+politicised-

neoli&eral version in that of 8aran9 of truncated pluralis$

the s#nchronic shado% of the diachronic ontologies that the# ape

%ithout &eing a&le to rival in their force of thought'

&) H+/+,$s "+6*s*+,*s: M+.9/*+778 P7/+7*s. F/+778 M,*s.

8aran5s OOO is a specific variant %ithin the general

paradig set out /adiou5s philosoph#' The terinological

differences are iportant' /adiou spea0s in ters of ultiples

and events$ 8aranin ters of o&.ects' /adiou e:plicitl#

ephasises the pluralist aspect of his ontolog# the choice of

the ontologicall# &asic ter of -ultiples- and anages to a0e

roo for tie and change 4events9$ even if he gives the a

secondar# place in his ontolog#' 8aran prefers the ore unitar#

ter of -o&.ect-$ and consigns tie and change to the real of

the -sensual-$ i'e' of shas and siulacra'


32/44


HARMAN$S CONFUSIONISM: +*=s .9/*,7=8 +,6

0,09.+7 0,7+.*,

1) HARMAN CONFLATES #NOWLEDGE AND ACCESS

8aran argues against -philosophies of access-$ &ut this is

.ust to redo$ onl# uch ore sloppil#$ the critical %or0 done

"opper and Sellars$ Juine and >uhn$ /achelard and *e#era&end$

Lacan and Althusser$ Wittgenstein and Rort# refuting and

disantling the dogas of epiricis' *ar fro going &e#ond the

post+structuralists 8aran has not even caught up %ith the

structuralists' No iportant philosoph# of the 2Gth !entur# has

&een a philosoph# of access$ and 8aran5s OOO is a regression on

ost of the preceding philosoph# that he clais to criti,ue and

surpass'>no%ledge is not -access-'

2) HARMAN CONFLATES RELATIONS AND INTERACTIONS

>no%ledge is neither access nor contact' "ropositional

relations are not access' An interaction is not in general

access$ either' More iportantl#$ a relation is not the sae

thing as an interaction' 8aran conflates all this to o&tain

soe &lurr# stra%+an that even a FG #ear old child %ould have

no trou&le refuting' So the %hole picture of relations as not

-e:hausting- the ,ualities of the o&.ect accessed is erroneous'

Thus -%ithdra%al- has no sense as a general concept' These ters


33/44


-access-$ -e:haust- -%ithdra%al- are norall# part of a

teporal$ d#naic voca&ular#' The# are used illegitiatel# in

8aran5s s#ste and serve to give an allure of teporalit# to

%hat is in fact an ontolog# of stasis'

3)HARMAN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PLURALIST CRITIUES OF MONISM

8aran is so concentrated on criticising the privilege

given to huan access and to anthropocentric assuptions in

general$ a rearguard action if ever there %as one$ that he has

no understanding at all for the recent and conteporar#

pluralist philosophies that attept to trac0 do%n and dissolve

the privilege given to reified categories and to onist

assuptions in general' 8aran5s ontolog# falls under the

pluralist criti,ues of the post+structuralists and the post+

epiricists'

4) HARMAN$S CONTRADICTIONS ARE DISGUISED "Y AM"IGUOUS

TERMINOLOGY AND CONCEPTUAL CONFLATION

8aran5s OOO relies on a s#steatic a&iguit# in his 0e#

ters 4o&.ect$ %ithdra%al9 &et%een their use as eta+categories

and their use as categories' We can never see or touch or 0no%

an o&.ect 4eta+categor#9 &ut he constantl# gives e:aples fro

different doains 4categor#9' Withdra%al eans ultiate

a&straction fro sensual ,ualities and relations$ a&solutel# no


34/44


direct contact or relation 4eta+categor#9$ or it .ust eans the

sensual richness of o&.ects$ al%a#s ore than our iediate

e:perience of the' We get a contradictor# s#nthesis &et%een a

Northern asceticis and a Mediterranean sensualis' /ut in the

last instance this concrete a&undance$ this aesthetic sensualis

is declared to &e an -utter sha-'

5) HARMAN$S SYSTEM IS "ASED ON HOMOLOGY

It is at the level of his ontolog# as rudientar# set of

eta+categories that the hoolog# of 8aran5s OOO %ith

speculative capitalis can &e affired' /adiou accepts the

e:istence of this hoolog# for his o%n ontolog#$ and ta0es it

ver# seriousl# as a pro&le' 8ence his repeated engageent %ith

the concepts of the event and change$ re,uiring hi to coplete

his s#nchronic ontolog# %ith a diachronic suppleent' 8aran5s

response is .ust incoprehension and denialis$ as %ith all the

other criti,ues that his s#ste has received' Nevertheless it is

the internal hoolog# &et%een eta+categories and the categories

that instantiate the 4%hich a0es of 8aran5s s#ste an

ela&orate pla# on %ords9 that a0es possi&le the e:ternal

hoologies &et%een 8aran5s s#ste and various concrete doains$

including the econo#'

!) OOO$S PHILOSOPHICAL INTELLECTION HAS PRIMACY: +77 97s9 *s


35/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM ?

*77s*,

The ,uestion of priac# reains oot in conteporar#

philosoph#' Despite repeated allusions to the collapse of

foundations and the attept to construct a post+foundationalist

philosoph#$ conteporar# thin0ers still grapple %ith this

,uestion' One ust as0 of each philosoph#; to %hat does it give

priac# 1 to philosoph#$ science$ art$ religion$ or coon sense

4or to none9 /adiou and 8aran give priac# to 4transcendental$

eta+level9 philosoph#' Laruelle is ore a&iguous$ giving

priac# to science$ #et including non+standard philosoph# on the

sae level as the sciences' Deleu)e and 7uattari in W8AT IS

"8ILOSO"8( are soe%here &et%een the t%o positions$ and so see

to avoid the pitfalls of priac#; the# situate philosoph# on the

sae level as the sciences 4and the arts9 &ut a0e philosoph#

capa&le of eta+operations that ta0e -functions- in ph#sics 4and

affects and percepts in the arts9 as o&.ects of its o%n

philosophical concepts'


36/44


HARMAN$S CONTRADICTORY HERMENEUTICS OF

SU"ECTIVITY

1) OOO SPLITS EPERIENCE INTO A"STRACT INTELLECTION AND

CONCRETE ILLUSION

8aran5s OOO splits hereneutic$ i'e' participative$

e:ploration of the %orld into o&.ective speculation 4an

a&solutised and thus -%ithdra%n- conte:t of .ustification9 and

sensual or su&.ective encounter 4an a&solutised$ and thus

-sha-$ conte:t of discover#9' This splitting deotes the

su&.ect to the %orld of shas$ %hich leads to a -reurn of the

repressed-$ in the for of an iplied su&.ectivit#$ &ut one that

he is either una%are of or un%illing to endorse e:plicitl#$

adapted to the neo+li&eral order' *ar fro eliinating

su&.ectivit# fro the %orld of o&.ects 8aran5s OOO is su&tended

an all+pervasive degraded su&.ectivit# as,uerading as its

opposite' 8aran then proceeds to re+su&.ectif# his

philosophical vision %ith e:pressions connoting a su&.ectivit#

that is ruled out the strict application of that philosoph#'

2) WITHDRAWAL CAN "E PARTIALLY OVERCOME: O"ECTUAL LOVE AND

THE ART OF O"LIUITY

Wa:ing l#rical$ 8aran tal0s of ho% %e ust love the

o&.ect; -The real is soething that cannot &e 0no%n$ onl# loved-


37/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM B

4T8E T8IRD TA/LE$ F29< thin0ing ust &e indirect$ -its approach

to o&.ects can onl# &e o&li,ue- 4F29$ and -allude to o&.ects

that cannot ,uite &e ade present- 4F=9' All this tal0 of loving

and hunting and approaching and alluding to$ all these

e:pressions are strictl# ill+fored' A sensual su&.ect cannot

love$ hunt$ approach$ or even allude to a real o&.ect' It5s not

that o&.ects cannot -,uite- &e ade present$ the# cannot &e ade

present at all' Withdra%al is all or

none$ it does not adit of degrees'

3) OOO IS A CONTRADICTORY MI OF NOETIC ASCETICISM AND

SENSUAL HEDONISM

(et to give appeal to the theor# 8aran has need of

descriptors of the su&.ective attitude of those %ho endorse it'

8ence the constant tal0 of o&.ects that redounds in untheatised

su&.ective participation in the theor# as vision of the %orld'

The o&.ectal conversion as the passage to the constructed

-naivet- that sees o&.ects ever#%here is thus a su&.ective

conversion to a hard+headed noetic asceticis of intelligi&le

o&.ects coupled %ith a soft+hearted sensual e:oticis of the

aesthetic pla# of siulacra' (ou can &e a gee0 and an esthete at

the sae tie$ %ith the contradiction &eing covered up the

edial su&.ectivit# of loving indirectness$ of hunterl#

o&li,uit#$ and of diaphonous allusion'


38/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM C

4) OOO PROSCRI"ES THE ETHICAL ENCOUNTER

Despite appearances to the contrar#$ 8aran in fact

privileges su&.ectivit# in various 0e# aspects of his

philosoph#; %hile tr#ing desperatel# to contain it %ithin his

conceptual reductions it seeps out and containates the %hole

%ith a gee0o+esthetic copound su&.ectivit# fusing cold

intellectual anipulation and %ar sensual en.o#ent$ thus

proscri&ing the ethical encounter %hich can &e neither erel#

conceptual nor erel# esthetic nor soe conflicted h#&rid of the

t%o'

5) OOO CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR #NOWLEDGE

8aran is in denial of hereneutics$ and as %ith his

denegation of episteolog# 4%hich results in his ela&orating a

&ad episteolog# under the guise of ontolog#9$ ends up doing &ad

hereneutics' 8is hereneutics of specific te:ts such as

Eddington5s -Introduction- is ,uite inade,uate and erroneous$ as

is his hereneutics of the histor# of philosoph#' 8aran5s 0e#

ters$ such as -%ithdra%al- and -access-$ are ill+fored

hereneutical concepts$ giving a grotes,ue siplification and

deforation of the histor# of philosoph# and of conteporar#

rival philosophies' *e#era&end and Latour argue that the

sciences are not a&stract cognition onl#$ &ut also have a


39/44


constitutive$ and thus necessar#$ hereneutic diension' This is

%h# even the sciences provide soe resistance against neo+

li&eral neo+lei&ni)ian a&straction and speculative odeling and

anipulation' 8aran5s odel is not enough to account for

0no%ledge$ and it is he %ho is &eing reductionist %ith his real

o&.ects and their supposed sensual instanciations'

OOO: A SU"ECT WITH A NOT SO GREAT PAST

Over the last fe% #ears the OOO:ian oveent has ultiplied

signs of success at the sae tie as sho%ing unista0a&le

s#ptos of decline' /ased on a denial of episteolog# and on

&lindness to its o%n status as 4&ad9 episteolog# OOO %as a&le

to capture the attention of those %ho %ere loo0ing for a ne%

speculative st#le$ after the Science Wars and in opposition to

those %ho %ere content to .ust parrot Deleu)e or Derrida or

*oucault' Stanle# !avell and Richard Rort# had each in his o%n

%a# sought to attain to the status of hoegro%n Aerican

!ontinental "hilosoph#$ &ut their Wittgensteinian and

8eideggerian frae%or0 %as too o&scure and a&struse$ too litist

and erudite' A ore pop version of the sae a&ition %as needed

and 7raha 8aran5s OOO satisfied a strongl# felt need to have

done %ith deconstruction and return to -naivet- 48aran5s %ord

fro the opening of T8E J6ADR6"LE O/KE!T9' 8aran is far the


40/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM =G

ore radical thin0er %hen %e copare his ontolog# of %ithdra%n

o&.ects to the atheatis of Meillassou:$ the scientis of

/rassier$ and the Lacanian naturalis of /r#ant' 8aran alone

has &een %illing to discard the scientistic pre.udice that

vitiates the %or0 of these thin0ers'

(et this superiorit# of 8aran5s position could onl# &e

aintained stic0ing to the pathos of an escape fro

episteolog#' As long as 8aran did not e:plicitl# engage %ith

episteological thees in his o%n nae the denegation of its

status as episteolog# on %hich his %or0 %as &uilt gave it even

ore force of conviction and persuasive po%er' The o&.ectual

conversion reained a potent possi&ilit#' With the pu&lication

of T8E T8IRD TA/LE this anti+epsteological posture %as revealed

as an iposture$ OOO %as revealed not as superior insight over

and a&ove coon sense and scientific realities$ thus gratif#ing

the narcissis of the artistic counit# %hile saving it fro

the accusation of postodern relativis$ &ut rather as a ode of

philosophising that %as intellectuall# incopetent to give a

satisf#ing account of the doains of science$ the huanities and

coon sense' Instead of an account %e get disissive

gesticulation; these doains are -sha-$ their o&.ects are

-siulacra- or -phantos-' The a&sence of an# understanding of

diachron#$ fro the diachron# of science and that of coon

sense$ to the diachron# of a siple arguent is patent' Real


41/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM =F

philosophical positions and arguents are replaced %ith a&surd

caricatures %hich are then easil# re&utted$ giving the

ipression of a livel# poleical force read# to accept and repl#

to o&.ections'

ON DISAPPOINTMENT IN PHILOSOPHY: .9 0+s9 OOO

We easil# tal0 a&out our enthusiass in philosoph#$ as if

our path of thin0ing %as one of the accuulation of truths and

eliination of errors$ one of progress' /ut disappointent is

.ust as iportant a driving force$ a non+philosophical affect

that shado%s our enthusiass' A philosoph# can see to e:press

%hat %e find essential to hear at a turning point in our life$

and to proise a ne% %orld of insight and freedo$ onl# to turn

out to &e a lure$ a deceitful irage una&le to live up to its

proises'

When I first read 7raha 8aran5s &oo0s I found the

proising' At least there %as a reference to conteporar#

pluralist thin0ers and a %illingness to engage in e:planation

and arguent' It too0 e onl# a couple of onths to realise that

the proised e:planations %ere either totall# inade,uate4the

#th of -episteologies of access- for e:aple is aintained

onl# loft# ignorance of huge parts of recent philosoph#$ and


42/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM =2

refusing to engage an# real reading of te:ts; .ust glo&al

denunciation9 or not forthcoing'

The initial shoc0 of recognition %as tepered the

realisation that 8aran %as &uilding on ideas that %ere

%idespread in !ontinental circles ? #ears ago$ and that I had

alread# su&.ected to a thoroughgoing criti,ue &efore oving on

to soething else' 8is -progress- %as in fact a regression to

&arel# disguised rehashes of old refuted ideas' I %as astounded

at the pretentiousness of the clais of OOO$ given their flis#

&asis$ and at the credulousnesss of the supporters$ too #oung to

have personal 0no%ledge of the prior avatars of these ideas'

Luc0il#$ I ,uic0l# found far ore satisf#ing and

intellectuall# challenging thin0ers 4/runo Latour$ Kohn La%$

Andre% "ic0ering$ Willia !onnoll#$ /ernard Stiegler$ !atherine

Mala&ou$ and *ran@ois Laruelle$ to nae a fe%9 and &egan to

ela&orate the non+standard pluralist philosoph# that I had

discovered in Deleu)e and *e#era&end and 8illan$ and that I

thin0 has still not seen its da#' I decided to deconstruct OOO

as a %a# of clarif#ing %h# I had initiall# &een attracted and

%h# I thought it %as a great step &ac0%ards'

I do not care for OOO in an# of its variants$ and I thin0

its onl# value is pedagogical; a %arning of the stupidit# that

dogs us all of enthrallent %ith the plausi&le products of

cognitive ar0eting' I thin0 that OOO5s popularit# is &ased on a


43/44


cruel isunderstanding' "eople see to thin0 that OOO announces

a return to the things theselves$ &ut as %e have seen this is

not so' Nor is it a return to the concrete diversit# and

a&undance of the %orld' This ipression is an illusion' OOO

gestures at the %orld$ even as it %ithdra%s an# real possi&ilit#

of e:ploring it and coing to 0no% it'

In # o%n case$ I have used OOO to help e clarif# # o%n

ideas on pluralist ontolog#$ and especiall# on Deleu)e and

*e#era&end' OOO is a de&ased s#nchronic travest# of the

diachronic pluralis that *e#era&end and Deleu)e espouse' What

people are loo0ing for and thin0 the# find in OOO is the e:act

opposite of %hat is there' "eople are loo0ing for

intellectualit#$ strange ne% concepts to go further on the paths

opened the preceding generation of philosophers$ and

concreteness$ an engageent %ith the a&undance of the %orld$ its

passions$ its pleasures$ and its pro&les' /ut OOO5s

intellectualit# is a ta%dr# sha$ and its concreteness is a

c#nical &luff'

8aran5s OOO is the %orst for of dualis iagina&le$ a

dualist episteolog# and ontolog# in regression fro the great

pluralist philosophies that preceded it' Are these pluralist

philosophies that I adire perfect No the# are ver# incoplete

and one+sided$ developped in response to concrete conte:ts that

are no% &ehind us' Are the#$ these deconstructive philosophies$


44/44

MORE MONIST IDEALISM ==

theselves iune to deconstruction Not at all The# theselves

even call for their o%n deconstruction$ and Stiegler$ Latour$

and Laruelle continue the effort and deconstruct$ each in their

o%n %a#$ %hat reains undeconstructed in their predecessors5

ideas'

A li&eration fro the conceptual scheas of philosoph# is

possi&le if$ as "aul *e#era&end invites us$ %e thin0 and act

outside sta&le frae%or0s 4-There are an# %a#s and %e are using

the all the tie though often &elieving that the# are part of a

sta&le frae%or0 %hich encopasses ever#thing-9 and fi:ed paths

4-Is arguent %ithout a purpose No$ it is not< it accopanies

us on our .ourne# %ithout t#ing it to a fi:ed road-9' This is

%hat I have &een calling diachronic ontolog#' It is the e:act

opposite of the path that OOO has chosen$ %here %e find a

s#nchronic ontolog# incapa&le of dealing %ith tie and change$

and a onis of transcendent %ithdra%n entities'

Documents

MORE MONIST IDEALISM Article Review of Graham Harmans Bells and Whistles(1)