I don’t know whether that’s you explanation of Kant or Harman’s, but it seems like a pretty bad understanding in a lot of ways. Things-in-themselves most definitely don’t need cognizers to exist. That’s why they are things IN THEMSELVES. I’m not sure whether you can say that things in themselves aren’t needed for cognition. Kant does himself ground noumena on the idea that appearances imply that which appears (which is just the thing-in-itself). So it doesn’t seem like there can be cognition without them of course. Though, whether this means that noumena somehow cause perceptions is a different can of worms. All of this also means that I really can’t see how OOO is too different from transcendental idealism. Since both endorse a kind of realism where the nature of the real isn’t transparent. Really, I’m not sure what Harman’s account of objects even is exactly. This video doesn’t really address it. Which really then just seems to solidify the likeness rather than opposition to TI.
Hartmann fails to fully grasp either Kant or Heidegger, and what little he does grasp he tries to ‘turn on its head’ as with Kant’s Copernicus revolution or Heidegger’s analysis of the ‘ready-to-head’ without grasping the more full import of transcendental analysis
I don't understand how this applies to artworks since they are obviously human-made and therefore objects with properties different from any other, regardless of whether they are contemporary. I suppose this is related to sustainability and environmental issues and trying to bridge this gap in the realm of philosophy relative to the gap left there by phenomenology. However what would be the point of even writing down a theory that dismisses the value of the subject that the the theory itself is directed to.
i don't get it. if you know how to refer to something that doesn't mean you know how to use them. You might know what it's used for, but not how to use them. Imagine a gold ring. Now imagine one that has twice the former ring's diameter. If you think you know how to use it and you pick it up and put it on your finger, then you clearly don't understand how to use it, and you should probably go and wash your hands. do people really think that knowing the name or shape of something is enough information to understand how it works or what it is intended to be used for? Just because someone knows the names of all the birds, doesn't necessarily mean they know physical differences between them.
The 'uncovering' is reformatting noumena into the human language. Once the goal of uncovering noumena has been realised, we would still be talking about the uncovered truths in phenomenal terms; escaping the category of 'things in themselves'. Perhaps the disparity in these modes of interpretation and communication is distorting the conversation (as Wittgenstein might argue) away from the understanding that both discourses could take a seat within phenomenology, which doesn't depend on the idea that the noumenal world cannot function in some form of a systematic relationship in itself, albeit irreducible to our mode of interpretation (i.e thinking of it in terms of "form") without giving up its category of 'Noumena'. Perhaps the arguments here are inadvertently arguing with 'where we place these categories within our language system', escaping the bigger picture of what our language is seeking to gesture to. It is very possible to the phenomenologist that such systems within noumena do exist and can be reformatted into phenomena, whilst taking caution that perhaps it is /only specific/ systems that our capacities will ever be able to 'uncover', perhaps as a kind of 'confirmation bias'; by this, I mean to suggest that these 'noumenal systems' can only be uncovered/reformatted because the conform to our way of seeing things (we can only reformat what we are designed to reformat).
Very interesting! I'm still trying to wrap my head around these quarrels, but I wonder if perhaps the movement of the OOO points not to an attempt to reformat the noumenon, but to provide tools for us to think the human cognitive interface differently. Perhaps cognition isn't even what is at stake, as I feel Kant is right when he says that human reasoning and understanding can only operate on phenomenical succession, that is, we can't think the noumenon because everything we think is already a phenomenon. I don't know how forced a stretch this is, but maybe we can gain access or have some kind of contact with the noumenon through instincts and impulses, through the body... What do you think?
I've always felt like the "object-oriented" thing is deliberately borrowed from coding in order to make this philosophy seem smart/cool, and then without realising it some people get sucked in by it and want to be seen talking about it
I think the word Ontology has a long history of being used in non-philasophical contexts like AI researchers and computing to then being used to describe sociology and systems within that. But object oriented ontology is branching off the other side of the defenition. Its not a deliberate choice to make the word seem cooler its just a different branch of the philosophical side and is relatively new as well in comparison to the history of the word.
@@thelasttruegamer Well it’s coding plus philosophy, instead of just philosophy, which I think seems appealing to people. Also conflating a philosophy with something that is more of a ‘hard science’ like coding could be a way of mentally legitimising something that is otherwise essentially an opinion. This is obviously very anecdotal, I’ve just always had that feeling about it. With this philosophy more than others I’ve observed people talking about it who clearly don’t understand what it is they’re actually talking about, like they just kinda want to be seen promoting it.
Great video. I've been working recently on a photography project dealing with these sorts of questions. Are there any books or articles that you could recommend I look into? I've only begun scratching the surface into this type of thinking so am still trying to wrap my head around it all.
Ben-I finished my MFA in 2020-low residency at Maine Media College. Had amazing mentors and worked on projects I designed. Best thing I did for myself in my journey to become an artist. Would be happy to chat further
I keep coming back to this as a nice,quick reminder, and I have new thoughts every time
Great job! Need more videos from you on philosophy.
I don’t know whether that’s you explanation of Kant or Harman’s, but it seems like a pretty bad understanding in a lot of ways.
Things-in-themselves most definitely don’t need cognizers to exist. That’s why they are things IN THEMSELVES.
I’m not sure whether you can say that things in themselves aren’t needed for cognition. Kant does himself ground noumena on the idea that appearances imply that which appears (which is just the thing-in-itself).
So it doesn’t seem like there can be cognition without them of course. Though, whether this means that noumena somehow cause perceptions is a different can of worms.
All of this also means that I really can’t see how OOO is too different from transcendental idealism. Since both endorse a kind of realism where the nature of the real isn’t transparent.
Really, I’m not sure what Harman’s account of objects even is exactly. This video doesn’t really address it. Which really then just seems to solidify the likeness rather than opposition to TI.
Hartmann fails to fully grasp either Kant or Heidegger, and what little he does grasp he tries to ‘turn on its head’ as with Kant’s Copernicus revolution or Heidegger’s analysis of the ‘ready-to-head’ without grasping the more full import of transcendental analysis
Have you read Timothy Morton's Hyperobjects?
I don't understand how this applies to artworks since they are obviously human-made and therefore objects with properties different from any other, regardless of whether they are contemporary. I suppose this is related to sustainability and environmental issues and trying to bridge this gap in the realm of philosophy relative to the gap left there by phenomenology.
However what would be the point of even writing down a theory that dismisses the value of the subject that the the theory itself is directed to.
Searched for "object oriented ontology".
This is first in the list.
Thank you and have a good one.
Great summary. Was considering purchasing Harman’s book but wanted an overview first.
i recommend the graham harman reader coming out in april! and timothy morton's books especially, OOO through ecology, super awesome!
I finished Harmans book today. Great read. Still not fully grasped it
If you use OOO to dethrone anthropocentrism or to criticize the noumena - phenomena distinction you're missing the point of the latter.
Very helpful! Thanks for posting
Ken Wilber's theory about all this is much more coherent.
i don't get it. if you know how to refer to something that doesn't mean you know how to use them. You might know what it's used for, but not how to use them. Imagine a gold ring. Now imagine one that has twice the former ring's diameter. If you think you know how to use it and you pick it up and put it on your finger, then you clearly don't understand how to use it, and you should probably go and wash your hands. do people really think that knowing the name or shape of something is enough information to understand how it works or what it is intended to be used for? Just because someone knows the names of all the birds, doesn't necessarily mean they know physical differences between them.
LOL
I got that joke.
This has really helped me, thanks a lot man
Is objected-oriented ontology refers to panpsychism?
The 'uncovering' is reformatting noumena into the human language. Once the goal of uncovering noumena has been realised, we would still be talking about the uncovered truths in phenomenal terms; escaping the category of 'things in themselves'. Perhaps the disparity in these modes of interpretation and communication is distorting the conversation (as Wittgenstein might argue) away from the understanding that both discourses could take a seat within phenomenology, which doesn't depend on the idea that the noumenal world cannot function in some form of a systematic relationship in itself, albeit irreducible to our mode of interpretation (i.e thinking of it in terms of "form") without giving up its category of 'Noumena'. Perhaps the arguments here are inadvertently arguing with 'where we place these categories within our language system', escaping the bigger picture of what our language is seeking to gesture to. It is very possible to the phenomenologist that such systems within noumena do exist and can be reformatted into phenomena, whilst taking caution that perhaps it is /only specific/ systems that our capacities will ever be able to 'uncover', perhaps as a kind of 'confirmation bias'; by this, I mean to suggest that these 'noumenal systems' can only be uncovered/reformatted because the conform to our way of seeing things (we can only reformat what we are designed to reformat).
Very interesting! I'm still trying to wrap my head around these quarrels, but I wonder if perhaps the movement of the OOO points not to an attempt to reformat the noumenon, but to provide tools for us to think the human cognitive interface differently. Perhaps cognition isn't even what is at stake, as I feel Kant is right when he says that human reasoning and understanding can only operate on phenomenical succession, that is, we can't think the noumenon because everything we think is already a phenomenon. I don't know how forced a stretch this is, but maybe we can gain access or have some kind of contact with the noumenon through instincts and impulses, through the body... What do you think?
I've always felt like the "object-oriented" thing is deliberately borrowed from coding in order to make this philosophy seem smart/cool, and then without realising it some people get sucked in by it and want to be seen talking about it
I think the word Ontology has a long history of being used in non-philasophical contexts like AI researchers and computing to then being used to describe sociology and systems within that. But object oriented ontology is branching off the other side of the defenition. Its not a deliberate choice to make the word seem cooler its just a different branch of the philosophical side and is relatively new as well in comparison to the history of the word.
I’m totally biased but I’m definitely scratching my head a little bit wondering how coding would strike you as more cool than philosophy
@@thelasttruegamer Well it’s coding plus philosophy, instead of just philosophy, which I think seems appealing to people. Also conflating a philosophy with something that is more of a ‘hard science’ like coding could be a way of mentally legitimising something that is otherwise essentially an opinion. This is obviously very anecdotal, I’ve just always had that feeling about it. With this philosophy more than others I’ve observed people talking about it who clearly don’t understand what it is they’re actually talking about, like they just kinda want to be seen promoting it.
Great video. I've been working recently on a photography project dealing with these sorts of questions. Are there any books or articles that you could recommend I look into? I've only begun scratching the surface into this type of thinking so am still trying to wrap my head around it all.
Graham Harman
Try Phenomenology of Perception- Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Heavy- reading for my first semester MFA in Photography
@@judithodell2925 Ah amazing thank you! I'm really considering the MFA in photography. How are you finding it so far?
Ben-I finished my MFA in 2020-low residency at Maine Media College. Had amazing mentors and worked on projects I designed. Best thing I did for myself in my journey to become an artist. Would be happy to chat further
@@judithodell2925 that’s amazing glad to hear it! Perhaps I could grab your instagram or email? Would love to hear more about your experience
Great job, thank you
Cuz subjectivity is learnt
Confused af. Need it simplified further
i think Whitehead's ontology is better and has greater explanation power.
OOO is what your girlfriend says when I put my object into her ontology 😎
Meaning =/= existence
Subtitles please! anybody?
I'm still lost, but seeing Tada's cute face makes all that ok.
There are no objects 'for' Ontology or 'of' Ontology: there is no such thing as ‘object oriented ontology’ .
did anybody told you that you look like the youngest son of Ragnar?
Who is that haha
triple O is a kabbalist view of reality
Please elaborate.
@@PepeNuclear capitalist mysticism
Literally how? 😂
thanks ¡¡¡¡
OOO is so tiredsome. It's based on gross epistemological misconceptions. Good video, though.
What are the epistemological misconceptions?
Yeah, I'm interested in this. Could you articulate the misconceptions? I don't mind how brief, just something to direct my perspective
Ooohhh
the lack of transcendental insight OOO has really bothers me