I'm glad you’re finding it useful, my friend. I’m certainly a neophyte myself; however, I’d just add that Žižek is not a poststructuralist, although he no doubt works in that space.
It is indeed a big problem in philosophy right now: how to reconcile Object-Oriented Ontology, which is heavily influenced by the lineage of thinkers like Plato, Aristole, Descartes, Kant, with Process-Oriented Ontology (Hegel, Heiddeger, Whitehead). The Western philosophical tradition is more biased towards the Object-Oriented tradition, but this has certain limitations.
Lost me at "consciousness is an object". Of course, you HAVE to think something like that to think that consciousness poses no problems for a view on which everything is an object. But that doesn't render intelligible the glaring category error of calling consciousness- which is the very possibility of phenomenally as such-an "object," thereby making it another discrete thing coordinate with all other objects that appear in consciousness. This error seems akin to the ontotheological error of mistaking Being for a being.
Consciousness is not AN object, but many different objects: every single conscious mind is a distinct object. My consciousness/mind is one object, yours is another and so on.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 That may add some helpful nuance, but it certainly doesn't address the fundamental issue I intended to raise in my comment. Whether we speak of "consciousness" or of "consciousnesses", it remains a category error to think and speak of something that itself never appears directly, but which is the very condition for appearance as such, as an "object" coordinate with other objects. And I say this as someone who is deeply sympathetic to the anti-anthropocentric and egalitarian impetus of OOO. I just think it's a simple confusion, an effort to square the circle.
hi sam bro i want to know graham why said lacan is more diffcult ? did he means it is just empty verbiage on that basis or conceptually it is diffcult or his writing style specially in ecrites is diffcult not conceptually diffcult or some other basis? i do not understand why he use diffcult in what sense? plz answer
I'll give it to Graham Harman that his ontology is very "useful," particularly for critique and deconstruction, as Ian Bogost and others have shown. However, it isn't satisfying in the slightest, for several reasons but mainly due to how it relegates consciousness to being yet another object. It's just refusing to address the elephant in the room (the Hard Problem) by saying the elephant isn't there, or claiming it's yet another jumble of atoms just like everything is, as though it possesses no unique emergent qualities (another concept that OOO tries to bypass by pretending it doesn't exist). A century of developments in physics has shown that humans aren't biased towards consciousness, but the whole universe is. This is why it stands in a class of its own, not as a mere object.
Well, the opacity of the sublime object of ideology is its conection with the real - there seems to be quite a bit of opacity and a hell of an object there!
AI overview: Object relations is a psychoanalytic theory that describes how people's early relationships with caregivers shape their adult relationships. It's a popular model used in dynamic psychotherapy
Haha, mate... I myself am a Žižekian and am not in agreement with all of Harman's views, but I certainly wouldn't call him a fake. Like Žižek, I think Harman is one of the most important philosophers of our time. Not to mention, he's genuinely a cordial person.
@@jodawgsup Fakes are people with no philosophic sense. In the case of Harman he just operates by being important. Careerists get played into it. It's disgusting, but always like that. 🎉
@@jodawgsup Fakes are people with no philosophic sense. In the case of Harman he just operates by being important. Careerists get played into it. It's disgusting, but always like that.
As someone just learning about Poststructurelist Theory and thus just learning about Žižek's Theory this is very interesting to me. Love to see more!
I'm glad you’re finding it useful, my friend. I’m certainly a neophyte myself; however, I’d just add that Žižek is not a poststructuralist, although he no doubt works in that space.
It is indeed a big problem in philosophy right now: how to reconcile Object-Oriented Ontology, which is heavily influenced by the lineage of thinkers like Plato, Aristole, Descartes, Kant, with Process-Oriented Ontology (Hegel, Heiddeger, Whitehead). The Western philosophical tradition is more biased towards the Object-Oriented tradition, but this has certain limitations.
Well put. Despite Prof Harman's dislike of him, I still think Hegel is the reconciliation.
Watching this is making me seasick.
Haha, why is that?
@@RahulSam cause he got wobbly cam™️ aaaahhr
Fantastic, enjoying this very much thank you!
Great to hear, Matt!
You simply don't get Hegel... or Lacan
I hear this a lot about Harmanm tbh.
"Hegel is still caught in the dyad of thought and world" dude hasn't grasped Hegel one bit
Lost me at "consciousness is an object". Of course, you HAVE to think something like that to think that consciousness poses no problems for a view on which everything is an object. But that doesn't render intelligible the glaring category error of calling consciousness- which is the very possibility of phenomenally as such-an "object," thereby making it another discrete thing coordinate with all other objects that appear in consciousness. This error seems akin to the ontotheological error of mistaking Being for a being.
Fair criticism. As much as I respect Prof Harman's work, here's where I disagree with him.
Consciousness is not AN object, but many different objects: every single conscious mind is a distinct object. My consciousness/mind is one object, yours is another and so on.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 That may add some helpful nuance, but it certainly doesn't address the fundamental issue I intended to raise in my comment. Whether we speak of "consciousness" or of "consciousnesses", it remains a category error to think and speak of something that itself never appears directly, but which is the very condition for appearance as such, as an "object" coordinate with other objects. And I say this as someone who is deeply sympathetic to the anti-anthropocentric and egalitarian impetus of OOO. I just think it's a simple confusion, an effort to square the circle.
Thanks for the video
Appreciate it!
hi sam bro i want to know graham why said lacan is more diffcult ? did he means it is just empty verbiage on that basis or conceptually it is diffcult or his writing style specially in ecrites is diffcult not conceptually diffcult or some other basis? i do not understand why he use diffcult in what sense? plz answer
I agree with Graham Harman.
I'll give it to Graham Harman that his ontology is very "useful," particularly for critique and deconstruction, as Ian Bogost and others have shown.
However, it isn't satisfying in the slightest, for several reasons but mainly due to how it relegates consciousness to being yet another object. It's just refusing to address the elephant in the room (the Hard Problem) by saying the elephant isn't there, or claiming it's yet another jumble of atoms just like everything is, as though it possesses no unique emergent qualities (another concept that OOO tries to bypass by pretending it doesn't exist).
A century of developments in physics has shown that humans aren't biased towards consciousness, but the whole universe is. This is why it stands in a class of its own, not as a mere object.
Yep. This is pretty much my view, too. I simply cannot see how, ontologically, the subject can be thought of as another object.
Well, the opacity of the sublime object of ideology is its conection with the real - there seems to be quite a bit of opacity and a hell of an object there!
AI overview: Object relations is a psychoanalytic theory that describes how people's early relationships with caregivers shape their adult relationships. It's a popular model used in dynamic psychotherapy
Not even close.
is your reply meant to indicate that obj relations theory in psychoanalysis isn't even close to OOO?
speculative realist nonsense detected. opinion rejected
Ah haha, people really seem to hate Speculative realism almost as much as analytic's hate Hegel 😜
Harman. Such a fake. Blah.. 😂
Haha, mate... I myself am a Žižekian and am not in agreement with all of Harman's views, but I certainly wouldn't call him a fake. Like Žižek, I think Harman is one of the most important philosophers of our time. Not to mention, he's genuinely a cordial person.
He's a fake. No sense of philosophy at all. Lots of fakes are important to wretched people; some of whom know he's a fake.
@@letdaseinlive how about you expand on why you think he is a fake, or would that be too complicated for you?
@@jodawgsup Fakes are people with no philosophic sense. In the case of Harman he just operates by being important. Careerists get played into it. It's disgusting, but always like that. 🎉
@@jodawgsup Fakes are people with no philosophic sense. In the case of Harman he just operates by being important. Careerists get played into it. It's disgusting, but always like that.