Object-oriented ontology tical or theoretical action.[8] Furthering this idea, Harman contends that when objects withdraw in this way, they distance themselves from other objects, as well as humans.[9] Resisting pragmatic interpretations interpretations of Heidegger degger’s ’s thought, thought, then, Harman Harman is able to propose propose an object-oriented account of metaphysical substances.
metaphy hysi sica call Object-orien Object-oriented ted ontology (OOO) is a metap movement that rejects the privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. [1] Specifically, object-oriented ontology opposes the anthropocentrism of Imman Immanuel uel Kant’ Kant’ss Cope Copernic rnican an Re Revol volutio ution n, whereby whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and, in turn, become products of human cognition.[2] In contrast to Kant’s view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that objects exist independently of human perception and are not ontologically ontologically exhausted exhausted by their relations [3] with with humans humans or other other objec objects. ts. Thus, for object-orie object-oriented nted ontologists, ontologists, all relations, including those between nonhumans, distort their related objects in the same basic manner as human consciousness consciousness and exist on an equal footing with one another.[4]
Following the publication of Harman’s early work, several scholars from varying fields began employing objectoriented principles principles in their own work. After encounterencountering speculative realism in the blogosphere, Collin College philosophy instructor Levi Bryant proposed a volume of collecte collected d essays on the topic. topic. Called Called The Speculative Turn , the project involved Harman and Nick Srnicek as co-editors. While completing completing the compilation, compilation, Bryant began what he describes as “a very intense philoObject-oriented ontology is often viewed as a subset of sophical email exchange” with Harman, over the course speculative realism, realism, a contempo contemporary rary school school of thought thought of which Bryant became convinced of the credibility of that critici criticizes zes the post-Kanti post-Kantian an reducti reduction on of philosop philosophic hical al object-oriented thought.[10] enquiry to a correlation between thought and being, such Other advocates for object-orien object-oriented ted ontology include litthat the reality of anything outside of this correlation is erature and ecology scholar Timothy Morton and video unknowable.[5] Object-oriented ontology predates specugame designer Ian Bogost. Morton became active in the lative realism, however, and makes distinct claims about movement after his book Ecology Without Nature Nature was the nature and equality of object relations to which not favorably compared to some aspects of object-oriented all speculative speculative realists agree. The term “object-orie “object-oriented nted philosophy. [11] Bogost, on the other hand, had read Harphilosophy” philosophy” was officially coined by Graham Harman, Harman, man’s Tool-Being while finishing his doctoral dissertation the moveme movement’s nt’s founde founder, r, in his 1999 doctoral doctoral dissertati dissertation on at UCLA at UCLA and and subsequently applied object-oriented ideas “Tool-Being: Elements in a Theory of Objects.”[6] Since to gaming, media, and technology studies.[12] then, a number of theorists working in a variety of disciplines ciplines have adapted Harman’s ideas, including philosophy professor Levi professor Levi Bryant, Bryant, literature and ecology scholar Basic Basic princi principl ples es Timothy Morton, Morton, video game designer Ian Bogost, Bogost, and 2 mediev medievalis alists ts Jeffrey Jeffrey Jerome Jerome Cohen Cohen and Eileen Joy. In 2009, Bryant rephrased Harman’s original designation as While object-oriented philosophers reach different con“object-orie “object-oriented nted ontology,” giving the movement movement its cur- clusions, they share common precepts, including a crirent name. tique of anthropocentrism and correlationism, a rejection of philosophies that undermine or “overmine” objects, “preservation “preservation of finitude” and “withdrawal”. “withdrawal”.
1
Found Foundin ing g of the move moveme ment nt 2.1
The term “objec “object-ori t-oriente ented d philosop philosophy” hy” was formall formally y coined by speculative philosopher Graham Harman in his 1999 doctoral doctoral dissertati dissertation on “Tool-Be “Tool-Being: ing: Elements Elements in a Theory of Objects” (later revised and published as Tool), though Being: Heidegger Heidegger and the Metaphysics Metaphysics of Objects ), he had con consid sidered ered deliv deliverin ering g an objec object-ori t-oriente ented d talk at the University of Toronto a year earlier, in 1998. [7] For Harman, Heideggerian Zuhandenheit , or readiness-to-hand, refers to the withdrawal of objects from human perception into a reality that cannot be manifested by prac-
Anthro Anthrodec decent entris rism m
The rejection rejection of post-Kantian privileging privileging of human existence over the existence of nonhuman objects. Beginning with Kant’s Kant’s “Coperni “Copernican can revoluti revolution,” on,” modern modern philosophilosophers began articulating a transcendental anthropocentrism, whereby objects are said to conform to the mind of the subject and, in turn, become products of human cognition. [2] In contrast to Kant’s view, object-oriented philosophers maintain that objects exist independently of human perception, and that nonhuman object relations 1
2
3
distort their related objects in the same fundamental manner as human consciousness. Thus, all object relations, human and nonhuman, are said to exist on equal ontological footing with one another.[4]
2.2
Rejection of undermining and “overmining”
Object-oriented thought holds that there are two principal strategies for devaluing the philosophical import of objects. [15] First, one can undermine objects by claiming that they are an effect or manifestation of a deeper, underlying substance or force. [16] Second, one can “overmine” objects by either an idealism which holds that there is nothing beneath what appears in the mind, or as in social constructionism, by positing no independent reality outside of language, discourse or power.[17][18] Objectoriented philosophy rejects both undermining and “overmining”.
2.4
Accordingly, objects cannot be exhausted by their relations with humans or other objects in theory or practice, meaning that the reality of objects is always present-athand.[21] The retainment by an object of a reality in excess of any relation is known as withdrawal .
Critique of correlationism
Related to anthrodecentrism, object-oriented thinkers problematize correlationism, which the French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux defines as “the idea according to which we only ever have access to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term considered apart from the other.”[13] Because object-oriented ontology is a realist philosophy, it stands in contradistinction to the anti-realist trajectory of correlationism, which restricts philosophical understanding to the correlation of being with thought by disavowing any reality external to this correlation as inaccessible, and, in this way, fails to escape the ontological reification of human experience.[14]
2.3
METAPHYSICS OF GRAHAM HARMAN
Preservation of finitude
Unlike other speculative realisms, object-oriented ontology maintains the concept of finitude, whereby relation to an object cannot be translated into direct and complete knowledge of an object. [19] Since all object relations distort their related objects, every relation is said to be an act of translation, with the caveat that no object can perfectly translate another object into its own nomenclature. [20] Object-oriented ontology does not restrict finitude to humanity, however, but extends it to all objects as an inherent limitation of relationality.
3
Metaphysics of Graham Harman
In Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects , Graham Harman interprets the tool-analysis contained in Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time as inaugurating an ontology of objects themselves, rather than the valorization of practical action or networks of signification.[22] According to Harman, Heideggerian zuhandenheit , or readiness-to-hand, indicates the withdrawal of objects from both practical and theoretical action, such that objectcal reality cannot be exhausted by either practical usage or theoretical investigation.[23] Harman further contends that objects withdraw not just from human interaction, but also from other objects. He maintains: If the human perception of a house or a tree is forever haunted by some hidden surplus in the thingsthat never becomes present, the same is true of the sheer causal interaction between rocks or raindrops. Even inanimate things only unlock each other’s realities to a minimal extent, reducing one another to caricatures...even if rocks are not sentient creatures, they never encounter one another in their deepest being, but only as present-at-hand ; it is only Heidegger’s confusion of two distinct senses of the asstructure that prevents this strange result from being accepted.[24] From this, Harman concludes that the primary site of ontological investigation is objects and relations, instead of the post-Kantian emphasis on the human-world correlate. Moreover, this holds true for all entities, be they human, nonhuman, natural, or artificial, leading to the downplayment of dasein as an ontological priority. In its place, Harman proposes a concept of substances that are irreducible to both material particles and human perception, and “exceed every relation into which they might enter.”[25]
Coupling Heidegger’s tool-analysis with the phenomenological insights of Edmund Husserl, Harman introduces two types of objects: real objects and sensual objects . Real objects are objects that withdraw from all experience, whereas sensual objects are those that exist only in 2.5 Withdrawal experience.[26] Additionally, Harman suggests two kinds of qualities: sensual qualities , or those found in experiObject-oriented ontology holds that objects are indepen- ence, and real qualities , which are accessed through inteldent not only of other objects, but also from the quali- lectual probing.[27] Pairing sensual and real objects and ties they animate at any specific spatiotemporal location. qualities yields the following framework:
3
•
•
•
•
Sensual Object/Sensual Qualities : Sensual objects are present, but enmeshed within a “mist of accidental features and profiles.”[28] Sensual Object/Real Qualities : The structure of conscious phenomena are forged from eidetic, or experientially interpretive, qualities intuited intellectually. [29] Real Object/Sensual Qualities : As in the toolanalysis, a withdrawn object is translated into sensual apprehension via a “surface” accessed by thought and/or action.[30] Real Object/Real Qualities : This pairing grounds the capacity of real objects to differ from one another, without collapsing into indefinite substrata. [31]
To explain how withdrawn objects make contact with and relate to one another, Harman submits the theory of vicarious causation, whereby two hypothetical entities meet in the interior of a third entity, existing side-by-side until something occurs to prompt interaction.[32] Harman compares this idea to the classical notion of formal causation, in which forms do not directly touch, but influence one another in a common space “from which all are partly absent.” Causation, says Harman, is always vicarious, asymmetrical, and buffered:
being contiguous to it. Connection conveys the vicarious generation of intention by real objects indirectly encountering one another. Finally, no relation represents the typical condition of reality, since real objects are incapable of direct interaction and are limited in their causal influence upon and relation to other objects. [35]
4
Expansion
Since its inception by Graham Harman in 1999, a number of theorists working in a variety of disciplines have adapted and expanded upon Harman’s ideas, including philosophy professor Levi Bryant, literature and ecology scholar Timothy Morton, video game designer Ian Bogost, and medievalists Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Eileen Joy.
4.1
Onticology (Bryant)
Like Harman, Levi Bryant opposes post-Kantian anthropocentrism and philosophies of access.[2] From Bryant’s perspective, the Kantian contention that reality is accessible to human knowledge because it is structured by human cognition limits philosophy to a self-reflexive analysis of the mechanisms and institutions though which cognition structures reality. He states:
'Vicarious’ means that objects confront one another only by proxy, through sensual profiles found only on the interior of some other entity. 'Asymmetrical' means that the initial confrontation always unfolds between a real object and a sensual one. And 'buffered' means that [real objects] do not fuse into [sensual objects], nor [sensual objects] into their sensual neighbors, since all are held at bay through unknown firewalls sustaining the privacy of each. from the asymmetrical and buffered inner life of an object, vicarious connections arise occasionally...giving birth to new objects with their own interior spaces.[33]
For, in effect, the Copernican Revolution will reduce philosophical investigation to the interrogation of a single relation: the humanworld gap. And indeed, in the reduction of philosophy to the interrogation of this single relation or gap, not only will there be excessive focus on how humans relate to the world to the detriment of anything else, but this interrogation will be profoundly asymmetrical . For the world or the object related to through the agency of the human will becomes a mere prop or vehicle for human cognition, language, and intentions without contributing anything of its own.[36]
Thus, causation entails the connection between a real object residing within the directionality of consciousness, or a unified “intention,” with another real object residing outside of the intention, where the intention itself is also classified as a real object.[34] From here, Harman extrapolates five types of relations between objects. Containment describes a relation in which the intention “contains” both the real object and sensual object. Contiguity connotes relations between sensual objects lying side-by-side within an intention, not affecting one another, such that a sensual object’s bystanders can be rearranged without disrupting the object’s identity. Sincerity characterizes the absorption of a real object by a sensual object, in a manner that “takes seriously” the sensual object without containing or
To counter the form of post-Kantian epistemology, Bryant articulates an object-oriented philosophy called 'Onticology', grounded in three principles. First, the Ontic Principle states that “thereis no difference that does not make a difference.”[37] Following from the premises that questions of difference precede epistemological interrogation and that to be is to create differences, this principle posits that knowledge cannot be fixed prior to engagement with difference.[38] And so, for Bryant, the thesis that there is a thing-in-itself which we cannot know is untenable because it presupposes forms of being that make no differences. Similarly, concepts of difference predicated upon negation—that which objects are not or lack when placed in comparison with one another—are dismissed as
4
arising only from the perspective of consciousness, rather than an ontological difference that affirms independent being.[39] Second, the Principle of the Inhuman asserts that the concept of difference producing difference is not restricted to human, sociocultural, or epistemological domains, thereby marking the being of difference as independent of knowledge and consciousness.[40] Humans exist as difference-making beings among other differencemaking beings, therefore, without holding any special position with respect to other differences. [41] Third, the Ontological Principle maintains that if there is no difference that does not also make a difference, then the making of difference is the minimal condition for the existence of being. In Bryant’s words, “if a difference is made, then the being is.” [42] Bryant further contends that differences produced by an object can be inter-ontic (made with respect to another object) or intra-ontic (pertaining the internal constitution of the object).[43]
4
EXPANSION
an assemblage of objects; for example, a neutrino passing through solid matter without producing observable effects.[52] Dark objects are objects that are so completely withdrawn that they produce no local manifestations and do not affect any other objects. [53] Rogue objects are not chained to any given assemblage of objects, but instead wander in and out of assemblages, modifying relations within the assemblages into which they enter.[54] Political protestors exemplify rogue objects by breaking with the norms and relations of a dominant political assemblage in order to forge new relations that challenge, change, or cast off the prior assemblage.
Additionally, Bryant has proposed the concept of 'wilderness ontology' to explain the philosophical pluralization of agency away from human privilege. For Bryant, wilderness ontology alludes to the being of being, or common essence “characteristic of all entities and their relations to one another.”[55] Resisting the traditional notion Since Onticology construes anything that produces dif- of wilderness that views civilization (the “inside” world ferences as being—including fictions, signs, animals, and of social relations, language, and norms) as separate plants—all being in the same sense real, albeit at differ- from wilderness (the “outside” world of plants, animals, ent scales, it is what Manuel Delanda has called a “flat and nature), wilderness ontology argues that “wilderness” ontology.” [44] Within an onticological framework, ob- contains all forms of being, including civilization.[56] Acjects are composed of differences coalescing into a sys- cordingly, the practice of wilderness ontology involves tem that reproduces itself through time. Changes in the experiencing oneself as a being amongst, rather than identity of an object are not changes in substance (de- above, other beings. In generalizing the agential alterity fined by Bryant as “a particular state attained by differ- of being as a foundational ontological principle, Bryant ence”), however, but shifts in the qualities belonging to a posits three theses:[57] first, wilderness ontology signals substance.[45] Qualities are the actualization of an object’s the absence of ontological hierarchy, such that all forms inhered capacities or abilities, known as an object’s pow- of being exist on equal footing with one another. Second, ers .[46] The actualization of an object’s power into quali- wilderness ontology rejects the topological bifurcation of ties or properties at a specific place and time is called lo- nature and culture into discrete domains, instead holdcal manifestation.[47] Importantly, the occurrence of lo- ing that cultural assemblages are only one possible set of cal manifestations does not require observation. In this relations into which nonhuman entities may enter in the way, qualities comprise actuality, referring to the actual- wilderness. Third, wilderness ontology extends agency ization of an object’s potential at a particular spatiotem- to all entities, human and nonhuman, rather than casting poral location among a multitude of material differences, nonhuman entities as passive recipients of human meanwhereas powers constitute virtuality, or the potential re- ing projection. Employing these theses, Bryant pluralizes tained by an object across time.[48] As objects are dis- agential being beyond human finitude, contending that in tinct from local manifestations and one another, referred so doing, the intentionality of the nonhuman world may to as withdrawal , their being is defined by the relations be investigated without reference to human intent.[58] forming their internal structure, or endo-relations , and retained powers.[49] This withdrawn being is known as the virtual proper being of an object and denotes its endur- 4.2 Hyperobjects (Morton) ing, unified substantiality.[47] When relations external to an object, or exo-relations , consistently induce the same Timothy Morton, the Rita Shea Guffey Chair professor in local manifestations to the extent that the actualization of English at Rice University, became involved with objectqualities tends toward stability (for example, the sky re- oriented ontology after his ecological writings were favormaining blue because of the constancy of Rayleigh scat- ably compared with the movement’s ideas. In The Ecologtering on atmospheric particles), the set of relations forms ical Thought , Morton introduced the concept of hyperob jects to describe objects that are so massively distributed a regime of attraction .[50] in time and space as to transcend spatiotemporal speciOnticology distinguishes between four different types ficity, such as global warming, styrofoam, and radioacof objects: bright objects, dim objects, dark objects, tive plutonium.[59] He has subsequently enumerated five and rogue objects. Bright objects are objects that characteristics of hyperobjects: strongly manifest themselves and heavily impact other objects, such as the ubiquity of cell phones in high-tech 1. Viscous: Hyperobjects adhere to any other object cultures.[51] Dim objects lightly manifest themselves in they touch, no matter how hard an object tries to
5
resist. In this way, hyperobjects overrule ironic distance, meaning that the more an object tries to resist a hyperobject, the more glued to the hyperobject it becomes. [60] 2. Molten: Hyperobjects are so massive that they refute the idea that spacetime is fixed, concrete, and consistent.[61]
Bogost calls his approach alien phenomenology, with the term “alien” designating the manner in which withdrawal accounts for the inviolability of objectal experience. From this perspective, an object may not recognize the experience of other objects because objects relate to one another using metaphors of selfhood.[68]
Alien phenomenology is grounded in three “modes” of practice. First, ontography entails the production of 3. Nonlocal: Hyperobjects are massively distributed works that reveal the existence and relation of objects.[69] in time and space to the extent that their totality can- Second, metaphorism denotes the production of works not be realized in any particular local manifestation. that speculate about the “inner lives” of objects, including For example, global warming is a hyperobject that how objects translate the experience of other objects into impacts meteorological conditions, such as tornado their own terms.[70] Third, carpentry indicates the creformation. According to Morton, though, objects ation of artifacts that illustrate the perspective of objects, don't feel global warming, but instead experience or how objects construct their own worlds. [71] An examtornadoes as they cause damage in specific places. ple of carpentry in practice would Bogost’s design of the Thus, nonlocality describes the manner in which a “Latour Litanizer,” a digital program that generates Lahyperobject becomes more substantial than the lo- tour litanies (lists of heterogeneous and often counterincal manifestations they produce.[62] tuitive objects that resist representative homogenization) using the MediaWiki software platform.[72] By rapidly 4. Phased: Hyperobjects occupy a higher dimensional dispersing a diverse array of results, the litanizer acts as space than other entities can normally perceive. a philosophical artifact that inhibits the reduction of the Thus, hyperobjects appear to come and go in threebeing of listed items to a governing prototype or truth dimensional space, but would appear differently to value.[73] an observer with a higher multidimensional view.[61] Bogost sometimes refers to his version of object-oriented 5. Interobjective: Hyperobjects are formed by rela- thought as a tiny ontology to emphasize his rejection of tions between more than one object. Consequently, rigid ontological categorization of forms of being, includobjects are only able to perceive to the imprint, or ing distinctions between “real” and “fictional” objects.[74] “footprint,” of a hyperobject upon other objects, revealed as information. For example, global warming is formed by interactions between the Sun, fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide, among other objects. Yet, 5 Criticism global warming is made apparent through emissions levels, temperature changes, and ocean levels, makSome commentators contend that object-oriented ontoling it seem as if global warming is a product of sciogy degrades meaning by placing humans and objects on entific models, rather than an object that predated equal footing. Blogger and cosmotheandric philosopher its own measurement.[63] Matthew David Segall has argued that object-oriented philosophers should explore the theological and anthroAccording to Morton, hyperobjects not only become vis- pological implications of their ideas in order to avoid ible during an age of ecological crisis, but alert humans “slipping into the nihilism of some speculative realists, to the ecological dilemmas defining the age in which they where human values are a fluke in an uncaring and fundalive.[64] Additionally, the existential capacity of hyperob- mentally entropic universe.”.[75] Other critical commenjects to outlast a turn toward less materialistic cultural tators such as David Berry and Alexander Galloway have values, coupled with the threat many such objects pose commented on the historical situatedness of an ontoltoward organic matter (what Morton calls a “demonic in- ogy that mirrors computational processes and even the version of the sacred substances of religion”), gives them metaphors and language of computation.[76][77] a potential spiritual quality, in which their treatment by future societies may become indistinguishable from rev- Cultural critic Steven Shaviro has criticized objectoriented ontology as too dismissive of process philoserential care.[65] ophy. According to Shaviro, the process philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead, Gilbert Simondon, and Gilles Deleuze account for how objects come into ex4.3 Alien phenomenology (Bogost) istence and endure over time, in contrast to the view Ian Bogost, a video game researcher at the Georgia Insti- that objects “are already there” taken by object-oriented tute of Technology and founding partner of Persuasive approaches.[78] Shaviro also finds fault with Harman’s asGames,[66] has articulated an “applied” object-oriented sertion that Whitehead, Simondon, and Iain Hamilton ontology, concerned more with the being of specific ob- Grant undermine objects by positing objects as manifesjects than the exploration of foundational principles.[67] tations of a deeper, underlying substance, saying that the
6
7
antecedence of these thinkers, particularly Grant and Simondon, includes the “plurality of actually existing objects,” rather than a single substance of which objects are mere epiphenomena.[79]
•
•
6
Key texts •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bennett, Jane (2010). Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things . Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. ISBN 9780822346197.
•
Bogost, Ian (2012). Alien Phenomenology, or What It’s Like to Be a Thing . University of Minnesota Press.
•
Bogost, Ian (2006). Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism . MIT Press.
•
Bogost, Ian (2011). How to Do Things with Videogames . University of Minnesota Press.
•
Braver, Lee (2007). A Thing of This World: A History of Continental Anti-Realism . Northwestern University Press.
•
Bryant, Levi (2011). The Democracy of Objects . Open Humanities Press. Bryant, Levi (2014). Onto-Cartographies: An Ontology of Machines and Media . Edinburgh University Press. Bryant, Levi; Srnicek, Nick; Harman, Graham (2011). The Speculative Turn . re.press. Ennis, Paul (2010). Post-Continental Voices: Selected Interviews . Zero Books. Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects . Open Court. Harman, Graham (2005). Guerilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things . Open Court. Harman, Graham (2009). Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics . re.press. Harman, Graham (2010). Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures . Zero Books. Harman, Graham (2011). The Quadruple Object . Zero Books. Harman, Graham (2011). Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making . Edinburgh University Press. Harman, Graham (2011). The Prince and the Wolf: Latour and Harman at the LSE . Zero Books. Harman, Graham (2013). Bells and Whistles: More Speculative Realism. Zero Books.
7
REFERENCES
Latour, Bruno (1988). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society . Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno (1999). Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies . Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy . Harvard University Press. Meillassoux, Quentin (2008). After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency . Continuum. Morton, Timothy (2010). The Ecological Thought . Harvard University Press. Morton, Timothy (2013). Realist Magic . Open Humanities Press. Morton, Timothy (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World . University of Minnesota Press.
References
[1] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects . Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8126-9444-4. [2] Bryant, Levi. “Onticology–A Manifesto for ObjectOriented Ontology, Part 1”. Larval Subjects . Retrieved 9 September 2011. [3] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects . Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-8126-9444-4. [4] Harman, Graham (2005). Guerrilla Metaphysics: Phenomenology and the Carpentry of Things . Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 1. ISBN 0-8126-9456-2. [5] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011). The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 8. ISBN 978-09806683-4-6. [6] Harman, Graham. “Brief SR/OOO Tutorial”. ObjectOriented Philosophy. Retrieved 23 September 2011. [7] Ibid . [8] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects . Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 1. ISBN 978-0812694444. [9] Ibid . p. 2. [10] Ibid .
7
[11] Gratton, Peter. “Tim Morton: The Interview”. Philosophy in a Time of Error . Retrieved 23 September 2011. [12] Ennis, Paul (2010). Post-Continental Voices . United Kingdom: Zero Books. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-84694-385-0. [13] Meillassoux, Quentin (2008). After Finitude. New York, New York: Continuum. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4411-7383-6.
[38] ibid . p. 264. [39] ibid . p. 266. [40] ibid . p. 267. [41] ibid . p. 268. [42] ibid . p. 269.
[14] Coffield, Kris. “Interview: Graham Harman”. Fractured Politics . Retrieved 23 September 2011.
[43] ibid . p. 269.
[15] Harman, Graham (2011). The Quadruple Object . United Kingdom: Zero Books. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-84694-700-1.
[44] Delanda, Manuel (2002). Intensive Science & Virtual Philosophy. New York: Continuum. p. 41. ISBN 0-82647932-4.
[16] Ibid . pp. 8–10. [17] Ibid . pp. 10–12. [18] http://dar.aucegypt.edu/handle/10526/3466 [19] Harman, Graham (2011). Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the Making . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-7486-4080-5. [20] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011). The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 275. ISBN 9780-9806683-4-6. [21] Harman, Graham (2002). Tool-Being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects . Peru, Illinois: Open Court. p. 1. ISBN 0-8126-9456-2. [22] Ibid . p. 1. [23] Ibid . pp. 1–2. [24] Ibid . p. 2. [25] Ibid . pp. 2–3. [26] Harman, Graham (2011). The Quadruple Object . United Kingdom: Zero Books. p. 49. ISBN 978-1-84694-700-1. [27] Ibid . p. 49. [28] Ibid . pp. 49–50.
[45] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011). The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 271. ISBN 9780-9806683-4-6. [46] Bryant, Levi. “Objects and Powers”. September 2011.
Retrieved 10
[47] Bryant, Levi. “The Mug Blues”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [48] Bryant, Levi. “Potentiality and Onticology”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [49] Bryant, Levi. “A Lexicon of Onticology”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [50] Bryant, Levi. “Regimes of Attraction”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [51] Coffield, Kris. “Interview: Levi Bryant”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [52] Ibid . [53] Bryant, Levi. “Dark Objects”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [54] Bryant, Levi. “Rogue Objects”. Retrieved 10 September 2011. [55] Jeffery, Celina (2011). Preternatural . Brooklyn, New York: Punctum Books. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-105-24502-2.
[29] Ibid . p. 50. [56] Ibid . p. 20. [30] Ibid . p. 50. [57] Ibid . p. 22. [31] Ibid . p. 50. [58] Ibid . p. 24. [32] Harman, Graham (2 August 2007). “On Vicarious Causation”. Collapse 2: 187–221. [33] Ibid . pp. 200–201. [34] Ibid . p. 198. [35] Ibid . pp. 199–200. [36] ibid . [37] Bryant, Levi; Harman, Graham; Srnicek, Nick (2011). The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne, Australia: re.press. p. 263. ISBN 9780-9806683-4-6.
[59] Morton, Timothy (2010). The Ecological Thought . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 130. ISBN 0-674-04920-9. [60] Morton, Timothy. “Hyperobjects are Viscous”. Ecology Without Nature. Retrieved 15 September 2011. [61] Coffield, Kris. “Interview: Timothy Morton”. Fractured Politics . Retrieved 15 September 2011. [62] Morton, Timothy. “Hyperobjects are Nonlocal”. Ecology Without Nature. [63] Ibid .
8
8
[64] Morton, Timothy (2011). “Sublime Objects”. Speculations II: 207–227. Retrieved 2014-05-18.
8.2 •
[65] Morton, Timothy (2010). The Ecological Thought . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 131–132. ISBN 0-674-04920-9. [66] Georgia Tech Homepage. “Faculty Page”. Georgia Tech Digital Lounge. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
•
•
[67] Coffield, Kris. “Interview: Ian Bogost”. Fractured Politics . Retrieved 15 September 2011.
•
[68] Gratton, Peter. “Ian Bogost: The Interview”. Philosophy in a Time of Error . Retrieved 15 September 2011.
•
EXTERNAL LINKS
Journals Collapse - published by Urbanomic continent. - edited by Jamie Allen, Paul Boshears, and Nico Jenkins O-Zone: A Journal of Object-Oriented Studies edited by Levi Bryant and Eileen Joy Speculations - edited by Paul Ennis, Michael Austin, Fabio Gironi, Thomas Gokey, and Robert Jackson Thinking Nature - edited by Timothy Morton and Ben Woodward
[69] Bogost, Ian. “Latour Litanizer”. Ian Bogost Blog. [70] Bogost, Ian. “Alien Phenomenology”. Ian Bogost Blog. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
8.3
Presses
•
Open Humanities Press - Ann Arbor, Michigan
[71] Bogost, Ian (2012). Alien Phenomenology. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Open Humanities Press. p. 90.
•
punctum books - Brooklyn, New York
[72] Ibid . p. 93.
•
re.press - Victoria, Australia
[73] Bryant, Levi. “Latour Litanizer”. Larval Subjects . Retrieved 16 September 2011.
•
Zero Books - United Kingdom
[74] Coffield, Kris. “Interview: Ian Bogost”. Fractured Politics . Retrieved 16 September 2011.
8.4
[75] Segall, Matthew David. “Cosmos, Anthropos, and Theos in Harman, Teilhard, and Whitehead”. Footnotes to Plato. Retrieved 16 September 2011. [76] Berry, David Michael. “Critical Theory and the Digital”. Critical Theory and the Digital . Retrieved 1 July 2012. [77] Galloway, Alexander R. “A response to GrahamHarman’s “Marginalia on Radical Thinking"". An und für sich. Retrieved 1 July 2012. [78] Shaviro, Steven. “Processes and Powers”. The Pinocchio Theory. Retrieved 16 September 2011. [79] Ibid .
8
•
•
History of object-oriented ontology and speculative realism - video lecture by Graham Harman Onticology Manifesto, Part 1 - by Levi Bryant
•
Onticology Manifesto, Part 2 - by Levi Bryant
•
A Lexicon of Onticology - by Levi Bryant
•
•
•
Blogs •
•
Object-Oriented Philosophy - Graham Harman
•
Larval Subjects - Levi Bryant
•
Ecology Without Nature - Timothy Morton
•
Ian Bogost - Ian Bogost
•
In the Middle - Jeffrey Jerome Cohen, Jonathan Hsy, Eileen Joy, Karl Steel, and Mary Kate Hurley
•
•
•
Speculative realism/object-oriented ontology tutorial - by Graham Harman
•
External links
8.1
Lectures/Tutorials
Dawn of the hyperobjects - video lecture by Timothy Morton UCLA 'OOO' Symposium - featuring lectures by Levi Bryant, Graham Harman, Nathan Brown, and Ian Bogost Feeling Stone - audio lecture by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen Incubus-Demons, Magic, and the Spaces Between the Moon and the Earth - audio lecture by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen with response from Ben Woodard Aristotle With a Twist - audio lecture by Graham Harman with response from Patricia Clough Kitchen Shakespeare - audio lecture by Julian Yates with response from Liza Blake Neroplatonism - audio lecture by Scott Wilson
8.5
•
•
8.5 •
•
•
Selected Interviews
Towards a Speculative Realist/OOO Literary Criticism audio lecture on a possible SR/OOO literary criticism by Eileen Joy More Notes Toward an SR/OOO Literary Criticism Twitter University lecture on SR/OOO literary criticism by Eileen Joy
Selected Interviews Philosophy in a Time of Error - Interview with Levi Bryant Philosophy in a Time of Error - Interview with Ian Bogost Philosophy in a Time of Error - Interview with Jane Bennett
9
10
9
9
TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES
Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
9.1 •
9.2 •
Text Object-oriented ontology Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_ontology?oldid=628032939 Contributors: Ijon, Nihiltres, Bhny, Frap, OSborn, Hu12, Gregbard, Andyjsmith, Seaphoto, Mesnenor, Magioladitis, Dwatson888, Snowded, Ydnahij, Beeblebrox, Sustainablefutures2015, Hasteur, Adynatoniac, Protoblast, XLinkBot, Download, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Omnipaedista, RjwilmsiBot, Bollyjeff, Gary Dee, ClueBot NG, Chriscoast, Helpful Pixie Bot, Footnotes2plato, LadyDiotima, Sordini2, Fracpol, BattyBot, OOOisthenewcorrelationism, Mogism, Cerabot, The Vintage Feminist, MrLukeDevlin, Jakec, Star767, MadScientistX11, Vivaortega and Anonymous: 26
Images File:Ambox_content.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Ambox_content.png License: ? Contributors: Derived from Image:Information icon.svg Original artist: El T (original icon); David Levy (modified design); Penubag (modified color)
•
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: ? Contributors: The Tango! Desktop Project . Original artist: The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the file, specifically: “Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although minimally).”
•
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: ? Contributors: Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist: Tkgd2007
9.3 •
Content license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
